View Topic

Alright, that leaves @Point Breeze and/or @Sapphiron's opinions on this.

While we wait, here is the way I'll likely end up voting.

Reasons for me to consider not voting 'aye:'

1. Ideally, a court system would have had to be used, but there is going to be a big push to change the current one soon, as many feel the current one is lacking (or too complicated, depending on who's asked).

2. Following on from point one, in the absence of interest in using the court system, there can be no diverse sentencing system. Ideally, I would have opted for a very harsh sentence, just short of revoking Govindia's citizenship, and made it understood that if he violated the conditions set forth by the verdict, his citizenship would immediately be revoked.

3. As of now, no system has existed for someone to officially warn Govindia about his actions and make it understood that if he didn't stop, he'd get his citizenship revoked.

So that's it for why I would have been conflicted.

However, as stated in this act, Govindia is hardly a first time offender. The behaviour displayed makes the environment toxic, and frankly, no region can function when one member is continually allowed to continue on such a misguided path. It hurts the community.

That is why this act, despite a few reservations on my part, still has my support.

I honestly take no pleasure in this. In fact, I am worried that we will perpetuate a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies present with Govindia, and harm him further, but not knowing Govindia well, such concerns can be premature, misinformed, and irrelevant. The fact is that bad behaviour has been shown and comprehensively documented, and in the absence of the court system, I don't view this act as unreasonable, nor as inaccurate.

That sums up my reasoning.

Actually, while we're waiting, I would like to hear others' thoughts on why you support/oppose this act, since this is something concerning revoking someone's citizenship, let alone Govindia's.  Especially since almost everyone in here has been around him for quite some time.

Sorry, I'm here now. Ideally, I would like this to go through a court system, but to be honest, due process is undoubtedly satisfied if we continue this route. Evidence is presented, there is debate, and the accused has the option to appeal. I don't really know what else I'd want (besides a formal way of the accused arguing the charges against them before the fact).  I agree with what Laurentus has said concerning problem individuals.

My only question is do we want to keep this at a discussion for the 48 hour period, or do we want to expedite it?

I've already stated my piece and I'm staying out of the rest of it (in here anyways, I'll still respond in the Platform on occasion) and leaving it completely up to you guys to decide, since I have a personal stake in this one.  I'm just making sure that everyone is on the same page before I make any motions of expediting or straight to voting.  Right now, Laurentus and Reon and saying they are for it, but I wanted to get everyone's opinion on it first before I did anything.

I am aware that we have discussed this before but I am hoping that Govindia will be allowed to make a statement first. I would prefer if the 48-hours discussion is kept. Once the period is over, I will be more than glad to motion to vote even if Govindia has not made his statement.

Understood.  That being the case, a motion to expedite will not happen, and this will resume its normal 48-hour cycle so that he can have the time to defend himself in the thread.

Understood. I would merely have liked to save all parties involved, including Govindia, from the pain of a long, drawn out debate where tempers could once again flare.

Understood. I would merely have liked to save all parties involved, including Govindia, from the pain of a long, drawn out debate where tempers could once again flare.

Well that's completely on him at this point.  If he chooses to come at this in a less than civil way and he loses his temper (which would be the most likely case), then it'd just look bad for him and give more cause for the Revocation.  As long as others keep it civil as well, and if he tries to bait anyone into an argument, simply ignoring the bait and keeping it at a professional level.

At this point it's his chance to make an appeal for the UH to change their mind and the OH to reconsider as well, so he has to really think about what he says.  And again, if he doesn't, then it just gives more cause for the Revocation to take place if he chooses to take the wrong route.

I was going to talk to him on IRC about it, but he's obviously a bit bitter since the only thing he said to me was "The fact that you think this is all a joke to you is sad and twisted."  The fact that anyone thinks that I would consider this a joke and would be having a laugh about it is sorely mistaken.  While I did push for an Act on this and even wrote it up...this is not something I take pleasure in doing.  In fact, I said it in the main discussion before this, and I'll say it again in public record: I'm actually severely disappointed in the fact that the first Act/bill I've ever written up and introduced ended up being a Revocation.  It's literally one of the last things I ever wanted to even consider writing up.  But at this point in time, I feel like it's necessary.

Understood. I would merely have liked to save all parties involved, including Govindia, from the pain of a long, drawn out debate where tempers could once again flare.

Well that's completely on him at this point.  If he chooses to come at this in a less than civil way and he loses his temper (which would be the most likely case), then it'd just look bad for him and give more cause for the Revocation.  As long as others keep it civil as well, and if he tries to bait anyone into an argument, simply ignoring the bait and keeping it at a professional level.

At this point it's his chance to make an appeal for the UH to change their mind and the OH to reconsider as well, so he has to really think about what he says.  And again, if he doesn't, then it just gives more cause for the Revocation to take place if he chooses to take the wrong route.

I was going to talk to him on IRC about it, but he's obviously a bit bitter since the only thing he said to me was "The fact that you think this is all a joke to you is sad and twisted."  The fact that anyone thinks that I would consider this a joke and would be having a laugh about it is sorely mistaken.  While I did push for an Act on this and even wrote it up...this is not something I take pleasure in doing.  In fact, I said it in the main discussion before this, and I'll say it again in public record: I'm actually severely disappointed in the fact that the first Act/bill I've ever written up and introduced ended up being a Revocation.  It's literally one of the last things I ever wanted to even consider writing up.  But at this point in time, I feel like it's necessary.

The fact that you are going to be abstaining from voting shows you're taking this seriously, and better yet, you're being professional about it.

It's one thing to have a personal stake in this, because I've said it thousands of times, and it's true.

But I also have a job to do.  In the UH and in the Platform, I'm a representative of the people first and foremost, so the bias hat has to go off.  There's a process known as keeping your troubles at the door so that you can do your job properly, and it's a motto I strongly believe in.  I may have a bias in all of this, but it's not something I'll let cloud my judgment in doing my job properly.

I'll go the best route that I believe is going to be the fairest for anyone, regardless of who they are, because the opinions of the majority matter more than the opinions of the one.  If the majority wants him gone, then I'll support it.  If the majority wants him around longer, then I may not personally agree with it, but I'll support it.  This is something that I want at least most of the UH and OH to be in agreement with, whether it be in giving him another chance or voting to revoke his citizenship.  Because if we want to continue functioning perfectly, we need to be able to keep things professional and consider Wintreath as a whole more than just ourselves or a single person.

As long as Govindia keeps it civil and doesn't start pointing fingers and trying to egg people on or bait them, then I'll encourage him to say his piece and for everyone to look at what he says and consider it in their decisions.  Because regardless of anything that happens, I do believe that he should still have a fair process regardless of which direction we choose to go, and I do believe that anyone with a bias needs to take those glasses off and do this purely at a professional level.

This whole revocation isn't about why we hate Govindia and why we don't want to sit with him anymore.  It's about the fact that this is someone that is potentially harmful to the atmosphere of Wintreath, and we need to look at the options of whether or not doing this is in fact beneficial or not for Wintreath in the long run, which unfortunately I believe that in the long run, it will be.  But as it stands, I'll only be voicing that stance for public record and for others to see, rather than voicing it to a vote.  I've already caused enough ruckus with the complaint and with creating the Act (even though I asked someone else to post it ), so staying out of voting and really out of any of the UH's decisions at this point just seems like the most appropriate action.

Reasons why (so far) I will be voting against Govindia:
1. He has shown himself to repeatedly be, if not the cause, the catalyst for trouble and harm.
2. He is intrusive on other's lives in a negative way, consistently pestering others and insisting that something be focused on.
3. This one is really just a personal thing of mine. Relates to my personality and life and just really makes me feel... Icky. Overall it's the one I'm most passionate about but contributes the least to my voting. He used autism as a defense. I do not appreciate that kind of thing. I'm autistic. My mother is more autistic than I. Don't use your difference as an excuse for poor behavior. That disrespects yourself and others who may share a similar difference. In an optimal world either no one would have any differences or everyone could faithfully accept everyone else's. We do not live in that optimal world and in either of our lifetimes it is desperately unlikely to occur. So stop being surprised by it and start accounting for its disgusting failure.

The first two again are the ones that are moving my vote and I believe that solely those two reasons are so extraordinarily moving that they have the ability to permanently and consistently ruin the region.

Reasons why (so far) I will be voting against Govindia:
1. He has shown himself to repeatedly be, if not the cause, the catalyst for trouble and harm.
2. He is intrusive on other's lives in a negative way, consistently pestering others and insisting that something be focused on.
3. This one is really just a personal thing of mine. Relates to my personality and life and just really makes me feel... Icky. Overall it's the one I'm most passionate about but contributes the least to my voting. He used autism as a defense. I do not appreciate that kind of thing. I'm autistic. My mother is more autistic than I. Don't use your difference as an excuse for poor behavior. That disrespects yourself and others who may share a similar difference. In an optimal world either no one would have any differences or everyone could faithfully accept everyone else's. We do not live in that optimal world and in either of our lifetimes it is desperately unlikely to occur. So stop being surprised by it and start accounting for its disgusting failure.

The first two again are the ones that are moving my vote and I believe that solely those two reasons are so extraordinarily moving that they have the ability to permanently and consistently ruin the region.

I'm not even autistic, and that statement of his disgusted me. It is conjecture from me, but I think he's realised he's fucked up, and now he's playing the "feel sorry for me because I have autism" card. I know, and have known, quite a few people with Asperger's Syndrome, and while everything isn't always butterflies and roses, none of them have displayed this level of irresponsibility for their own mistakes.

I'll tag @Aragonn, for example, who also has autism, and though we've had some epic disagreements, he doesn't justify his mistakes by playing that card. He consistently approaches a situation with an open mind, and learns and adapts.

Truly infuriating behaviour from Gov. So I truly am disgusted by that appeal.

If I am remembering correctly this is the first time I've explicitly mentioned it around Wintreath. Usually I would prefer it to be nothing.

Reasons why (so far) I will be voting against Govindia:
1. He has shown himself to repeatedly be, if not the cause, the catalyst for trouble and harm.
2. He is intrusive on other's lives in a negative way, consistently pestering others and insisting that something be focused on.
3. This one is really just a personal thing of mine. Relates to my personality and life and just really makes me feel... Icky. Overall it's the one I'm most passionate about but contributes the least to my voting. He used autism as a defense. I do not appreciate that kind of thing. I'm autistic. My mother is more autistic than I. Don't use your difference as an excuse for poor behavior. That disrespects yourself and others who may share a similar difference. In an optimal world either no one would have any differences or everyone could faithfully accept everyone else's. We do not live in that optimal world and in either of our lifetimes it is desperately unlikely to occur. So stop being surprised by it and start accounting for its disgusting failure.

The first two again are the ones that are moving my vote and I believe that solely those two reasons are so extraordinarily moving that they have the ability to permanently and consistently ruin the region.

He uses Autism here?  I think in the TNP thread that Mooty posted, it was Aspergers.