Motion to remove Nigel Uno as Spartan Swill Secretary-General

For abuse of powers and actions contrary to the founding principles of this site.

I welcome your support of this motion.

No Tanfan option? This is a MAC level poll.

Second

The Lonely Stoner wrote:No Tanfan option? This is a MAC level poll.

Truth be told, I never found that to be remotely funny or clever.

It was already moved that he be banned for 2 weeks, there was a second and a third but he refuses to put himself up for a vote. He is clearly in breach of his duties. In fact, it can be argued that he has gone rogue.

tTito wrote:It was already moved that he be banned for 2 weeks, there was a second and a third but he refuses to put himself up for a vote. He is clearly in breach of his duties. In fact, it can be argued that he has gone rogue.

No breach.

Bizarro Fletch wrote:

Truth be told, I never found that to be remotely funny or clever.

So you're saying that option was never funny and never needed?

NigelUno wrote:

No breach.

Certainly negligence of your duties, which according to our Charter is reason for appointment of a new Ephor. This motion is valid.

Turtleneck wrote:

So you're saying that was option was never funny and never needed?

Ok, this is funny.  

Bizarro Fletch wrote:For abuse of powers and actions contrary to the founding principles of this site.

I welcome your support of this motion.

I would say that I am adhering to the founding principles of this site.

You are welcome to make your case though.

InTenSity wrote:
Ok, this is funny.  

Not sure everybody gets it though.

NigelUno wrote:

Not sure everybody gets it though.

Maybe noah'n gets it.

Bizarro Fletch wrote:

Certainly negligence of your duties, which according to our Charter is reason for appointment of a new Ephor.  This motion is valid.

The negligence being...

NigelUno wrote:

The negligence being...

A motion for removal has been made and seconded. Please perform your duty as Secretary-General.

If he doesn't put this to a vote, he's going to have an uprising that will make Ferguson look like a goddamned picnic.

Bizarro Fletch wrote:

A motion for removal has been made and seconded. Please perform your duty as Secretary-General.

I am. Let me know when you're done reading the Charter.

Nigel cannot be removed. Please read the charter. He WILL be up for re-election in about 1.5 years, as will all of the Ephorate.

SeeRockCity wrote:Nigel cannot be removed.  Please read the charter.  He WILL be up for re-election in about 1.5 years, as will all of the Ephorate.

But he can be banned. And a perma-ban would effectively remove him, yes?

SeeRockCity wrote:Nigel cannot be removed.  Please read the charter.  He WILL be up for re-election in about 1.5 years, as will all of the Ephorate.

Let's kill him
Then   

SeeRockCity wrote:Nigel cannot be removed.  Please read the charter.  He WILL be up for re-election in about 1.5 years, as will all of the Ephorate.

Not being able to remove someone is a huge mistake in your totalitarian charter that we all have to abide by despite not having ratified it in the first place thus making it illegitimate.

Heat Miser wrote:

SeeRockCity wrote:Nigel cannot be removed.  Please read the charter.  He WILL be up for re-election in about 1.5 years, as will all of the Ephorate.

But he can be banned. And a perma-ban would effectively remove him, yes?

This is correct. He could be temp banned but he would not lose his place in the Ephorate. Of course, a perma ban would remove him from the Gerousia and we would have to find another Sec Gen, but 2/3 is not going to happen IMHO.

Plus, I think he's doing a pretty good job so far when simply considering his work as Sec Gen.

Wait... so this whole charter stuff is real?

Rodeo Burger wrote:If he doesn't put this to a vote, he's going to have an uprising that will make Ferguson look like a goddamned picnic.

X let's   dig a ditch and bury the bitch

Ummmm hello Brahs, the guy who made the "second" is not a Geronte, that's Nigel's point and he's laughing because you can't figure it out.

SeeRockCity wrote:

Heat Miser wrote:

SeeRockCity wrote:Nigel cannot be removed.  Please read the charter.  He WILL be up for re-election in about 1.5 years, as will all of the Ephorate.

But he can be banned. And a perma-ban would effectively remove him, yes?

This is correct.  He could be temp banned but he would not lose his place in the Ephorate.  Of course, a perma ban would remove him from the Gerousia and we would have to find another Sec Gen, but 2/3 is not going to happen IMHO.

Plus, I think he's doing a pretty good job so far when simply considering his work as Sec Gen.

Agreed on all counts. Just getting the details down, as it appears at least one of Nigel's interpretations is incorrect.

Please...someone third this so I can see if he actually goes through with it.

dubie7006 wrote:Please...someone third this so I can see if he actually goes through with it.

It's the principle of the thing.   

I'll 3rd it. Hold please.

NigelUno wrote:

It's the principle of the thing.    

I'll 3rd it.  Hold please.

Actually, I am testing the principle. But continue to be a jackoff.

After analyzing the statistical data, the secret police have discovered that so many Geronte never participate and therefore Nigel is safe. Only then did he suggest that he will submit to a vote.

dubie7006 wrote:

Actually, I am testing the principle.  But continue to be a jackoff.

Glad I could help.

God this place sucks now.

Death Roe wrote:God this place sucks now.

It's the principle of the thing.

Wait, didn't someone say Fletch went on a power trip when he was the Wells Hall moderator long ago?

The irony is delicious.

Death Roe wrote:Wait, didn't someone say Fletch went on a power trip when he was the Wells Hall moderator long ago?

The irony is delicious.

Ummmm, no.

SeeRockCity wrote:This is correct.  He could be temp banned but he would not lose his place in the Ephorate.  Of course, a perma ban would remove him from the Gerousia and we would have to find another Sec Gen, but 2/3 is not going to happen IMHO.

That almost sounds like a challenge.

Death Roe wrote:God this place sucks now.

Now?

Bizarro Fletch wrote:

Truth be told, I never found that to be remotely funny or clever.

Meh. I no minder. No even understand the orgin either

SeeRockCity wrote:

This is correct. He could be temp banned but he would not lose his place in the Ephorate. Of course, a perma ban would remove him from the Gerousia and we would have to find another Sec Gen, but 2/3 is not going to happen IMHO.

Plus, I think he's doing a pretty good job so far when simply considering his work as Sec Gen.

What is the role of sec gen?

NigelUno wrote:

Let me know when you're done reading the Charter.

Look what I found in the Charter...

    

SRC: The Charter Reads:

The Ephorate, will be elected by the Gerousia every even year, in the first month of OT season. The process is TBD but voting will be conducted in the same way we always do. There are no limits to the number of terms an Ephor can server, nor the sequence in which he/she serves them. ALL EPHORATE POSTIONS ARE GRANTED BY ELECTION (yes, including mine) except in special circumstances, including, but not limited to, the resignation or early termination of a standing Ephor, the formation of the initial Ephorate, the replacement of an Ephor in the case of negligence or apathy toward his or her duty, the replacement of an Ephor due to a permaban.


See my underlines. The Charter clear anticipates the ability to remove a Ephor early in the case of negligence or apathy toward his/her duty. Otherwise why have a provision to select a new Ephor in such events. There are gaps in the language or the charter on how such removal is performed, but when powers are not specified to a managing body, the Members retain such powers. Thus the only logical reading of this language is that the voting members have the authority to remove any standing Ephor if they collectively deem there to be negligence or apathy toward duties. Being there is no provision to create supermajority voting on this issue (being silent) simple majority rules.