Proposal to recall Punk D.

Funkadelia

Funkadelia

TNPer
TNP Nation
Funkadelia Island
I recently tried to recall Punk D once before, however one could argue that it may or may not have been ill advised or too wild of a reaction. However, this time, I feel that the recall request is well based. Punk D, especially during the aftermath of the most recent review, has been avoiding actually carrying out his job as a justice. He has adamantly refused to answer questions asked by people in response to his own ruling on a review, and I feel that this action is worthy of a recall, especially given the severity of the issue at hand. I move that the RA recalls Punk D from his Court Justice position.
 
1.) Flagrantly refusing to answer the simple questions asked by COE in the review thread.
2.) Consistently not clarifying rulings when asked of him

I can't really think of more at the moment, and don't have time really as I am about to run out the door. I or someone else will probably have more later.
 
Funkadelia:
1.) Flagrantly refusing to answer the simple questions asked by COE in the review thread.
2.) Consistently not clarifying rulings when asked of him

I can't really think of more at the moment, and don't have time really as I am about to run out the door. I or someone else will probably have more later.
Click to expand...
Ah, thank you. I am still having a bit of trouble, are 1 and 2 really that different?
 
I do not believe the Justice avoiding answering or clarifying any questions whatsoever.

In my opinion, several people asked similar questions that were addressed and answered clearly and purposefully sought to ignore those answers until they were presented in a specific format.

Simply because someone lists a number of enquiries that does not automatically mean that all the questions must be answered separately and specifically address those questions in numeric order. The questions asked were answered in sum.

If someone asks "are deputies included" and the answer is "yes" then someone else asking if "deputies deputies are included, also are deputies included if they are X, Y or Z" doesn't make it a separate question or somehow more relevant than the previous request. Some people seem to lack coherent reading comprehension skills when it comes to such things. (Note: I am not speaking of the OP directly in this regard, just an observation of several individuals involved in that exchange.)

Contrary to popular sentiment, there are stupid questions.
 
<speaker hat off>

I don't think the Punk D should be recalled over this incident, but there are a few points in GM's post that I am obliged to respond to.
Gracius Maximus:
I do not believe the Justice avoiding answering or clarifying any questions whatsoever.

In my opinion, several people asked similar questions that were addressed and answered clearly and purposefully sought to ignore those answers until they were presented in a specific format.
Click to expand...
You're the one that's caught up on the format. The questions that I and SillyString asked were enumerated so that the vague, contradictory statements in the confused opinion of the Court could be analyzed and the actual empirical effects could be teased out. You and Punk D responded by repeating your original vague, contradictory statements, not by answering the questions at all.

Gracius Maximus:
Simply because someone lists a number of enquiries that does not automatically mean that all the questions must be answered separately and specifically address those questions in numeric order. The questions asked were answered in sum.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between answering a number of questions in sum, and simply brushing the questions off and gesturing to something we had already read. Obviously, if we were asking the questions, it's because the information contained in the ruling was not sufficiently clear. Quoting it doesn't help.

Gracius Maximus:
If someone asks "are deputies included" and the answer is "yes" then someone else asking if "deputies deputies are included, also are deputies included if they are X, Y or Z" doesn't make it a separate question or somehow more relevant than the previous request. Some people seem to lack coherent reading comprehension skills when it comes to such things.
Click to expand...
In the part of the ruling you quoted, the title of the section differed substantially from the information contained within, listing several offices that were not mentioned in the text of the ruling itself (only the title of the section). Furthermore, "applicable deputies" could have referred to "all the deputies of those offices which have deputies" OR "only deputies of those offices whose deputies are given powers by the Constitution and Legal Code." The questions were listed out so as to prevent a similarly muddled answer.

To get back to the topic, this event alone is not sufficient to warrant a recall of Punk D, in my mind. Recall should be reserved for Justices who are really hurting the region, not just handling questions about their rulings poorly.
 
Seeing a motion and a second, this will move to a vote in a reasonable period of time.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like I forgot my own procedures. The recall motion will remain in Formal Debate until 2013-06-15 at 2 AM GMT, at which time it will enter the queue, with two days to gather a second. Tyler's second is premature, as motions to second are not considered during Formal Debate. The proposal will need to be seconded again once it enters the queue in about 8 hours from this edit. A guide to understanding the new procedures may be found here, in the opening post.

Since there is no associated text with a recall motion, I will be looking into modifying the procedures to allow for a slightly different process for recalls.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Stuff
Click to expand...
No.

You failing to understand does not automatically equate to the ruling being unclear. It simply means you did not understand.

You took part of the ruling out of context and asked questions that were painfully obvious if only you had addressed the ruling as a whole. The heading is part of the ruling. Your choice to ignore it and harp on "deputies of deputies" and other extraneous issues simply illustrated your lack of comprehension in my opinion, not an error in the ruling.

From those I have spoken with about it, it was very clear. It was also very clear that you were either deliberately or ignorantly asking questions that were clearly addressed in the ruling. I would hope you spoke out of ignorance instead of antagonism, but I am unsure.
 
If I added any additional comments to GM's post above then I would be doing what I refused to do within the ruling thread and that is answer a question that had been sufficiently answered.

And so I'll maintain consistency and say "see GM's preceding post" for the reasoning behind not commenting more than this post on this subject.

I'm going to go back to the work a Justice now.
 
Gracius Maximus:
From those I have spoken with about it, it was very clear. It was also very clear that you were either deliberately or ignorantly asking questions that were clearly addressed in the ruling. I would hope you spoke out of ignorance instead of antagonism, but I am unsure.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure who you've spoken to, but that ruling was the laughing stock of #tnp for over an hour, because of the ambiguities I pointed out above. And if anyone thinks that I, or anyone from my office, was trying to antagonize the court, they don't know me very well at all.
 
Haha, it is amazing that you can say that you do not wish to antagonize the court in one sentence, and in the other inform all and sundry that you believe the ruling to be a laughing stock. :clap:

I agree with GM on this one, as my earlier comment illustrated. You were being deliberately obtuse and quite frankly the answers to all of your questions were sufficient. Sorry he did not list them in numeric form, or give you a keyword that you could search, as that seems to be your analytical method.
 
Lets all have a cup of tea. And some brownies. I baked them myself. With my "special" recipe. There now, doesn't that sound relaxing? :D

My only question is, why oh why couldn't this thread have died quietly for lack of a second?
 
Great Bights Mum:
Lets all have a cup of tea. And some brownies. I baked them myself. With my "special" recipe. There now, doesn't that sound relaxing?
Click to expand...
OMG! GBM is actually one of the Baldwin Sisters from the TV show "The Waltons". I knew it! I knew it! :P

recipemachine.jpg


:clap:
 
Gracius Maximus:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Stuff
Click to expand...
No.

You failing to understand does not automatically equate to the ruling being unclear. It simply means you did not understand.

You took part of the ruling out of context and asked questions that were painfully obvious if only you had addressed the ruling as a whole. The heading is part of the ruling. Your choice to ignore it and harp on "deputies of deputies" and other extraneous issues simply illustrated your lack of comprehension in my opinion, not an error in the ruling.

From those I have spoken with about it, it was very clear. It was also very clear that you were either deliberately or ignorantly asking questions that were clearly addressed in the ruling. I would hope you spoke out of ignorance instead of antagonism, but I am unsure.
Click to expand...
Okay, if there's one thing I learned from the crap that I got over the few months I spent on the Court, is that if you've got a lot of people saying that they can't figure out what your ruling is saying and that it's unclear, then it probably is. Or, at least, for the intents of purposes of having an actually useful ruling bank, it's pretty much useless. If the only people who can understand a ruling are those who made it, you've got a -serious- problem on your hands.

However, that's a little bit of a sidetrack. I don't think making a crappy ruling and being obstructive about answering questions on it is in itself a reason for recall, especially as I can understand why it happens, having done it myself.

Saying that, I think a lot would be gained here from the Court trying for a moment to take a step back, out of the defensive. I know it's bloody hard, I pretty much couldn't do it, but for the sake of the region -try-. Mistakes get made and they have to be acknowledged, and ignoring questions on rulings purely because you think that the person asking them has to be -really- stupid to want to ask them (hint, they're probably not) never ends somewhere good.
 
I believe that perhaps that singular ruling is not worth a recall, but I believe as a whole there have been confusing or perhaps even baseless decisions during Punk D's term and that is worth a recall in my mind. I realize many of you probably don't think as much of me recently due to the accusations against me as well as the controversy regarding the past Vice Delegate election, however I fully think that this is worth a recall. The last time a group of people, including me, tried to recall a slew of officials it was mainly to make a point. But again, this time I believe that there is a solid basis to the recall motion. If the person in charge is not doing the job well, then they need not have the job. Punk D may be doing his job on time, but he is not doing it fully in that he does not present things to us in a manner that we can all understand and understand without opening further gray areas.
 
In punks defence, a good chunk of the controversial rulings were written by me, and I seem to remember that he wasn't even involved with one of them. Why don't you provide some evidence to back up all this crap you're throwing around? Or is that too much like hard work...
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Seeing a motion and a second, this will move to a vote in a reasonable period of time.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like I forgot my own procedures. The recall motion will remain in Formal Debate until 2013-06-15 at 2 AM GMT, at which time it will enter the queue, with two days to gather a second. Tyler's second is premature, as motions to second are not considered during Formal Debate. The proposal will need to be seconded again once it enters the queue in about 8 hours from this edit. A guide to understanding the new procedures may be found here, in the opening post.

Since there is no associated text with a recall motion, I will be looking into modifying the procedures to allow for a slightly different process for recalls.
Click to expand...
 
Abbey Anumia:
Gracius Maximus:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Stuff
Click to expand...
No.

You failing to understand does not automatically equate to the ruling being unclear. It simply means you did not understand.

You took part of the ruling out of context and asked questions that were painfully obvious if only you had addressed the ruling as a whole. The heading is part of the ruling. Your choice to ignore it and harp on "deputies of deputies" and other extraneous issues simply illustrated your lack of comprehension in my opinion, not an error in the ruling.

From those I have spoken with about it, it was very clear. It was also very clear that you were either deliberately or ignorantly asking questions that were clearly addressed in the ruling. I would hope you spoke out of ignorance instead of antagonism, but I am unsure.
Click to expand...
Okay, if there's one thing I learned from the crap that I got over the few months I spent on the Court, is that if you've got a lot of people saying that they can't figure out what your ruling is saying and that it's unclear, then it probably is. Or, at least, for the intents of purposes of having an actually useful ruling bank, it's pretty much useless. If the only people who can understand a ruling are those who made it, you've got a -serious- problem on your hands.

However, that's a little bit of a sidetrack. I don't think making a crappy ruling and being obstructive about answering questions on it is in itself a reason for recall, especially as I can understand why it happens, having done it myself.

Saying that, I think a lot would be gained here from the Court trying for a moment to take a step back, out of the defensive. I know it's bloody hard, I pretty much couldn't do it, but for the sake of the region -try-. Mistakes get made and they have to be acknowledged, and ignoring questions on rulings purely because you think that the person asking them has to be -really- stupid to want to ask them (hint, they're probably not) never ends somewhere good.
Click to expand...
I guess this would require you to define "a lot of people".

As I see it, it was two. And both were asking questions in a manner that was seemingly deliberately confrontational. Not sure how that qualifies as "a lot". Did you actually read the exchange that took place before commenting on this?
 
Abbey Anumia:
In punks defence, a good chunk of the controversial rulings were written by me, and I seem to remember that he wasn't even involved with one of them. Why don't you provide some evidence to back up all this crap you're throwing around? Or is that too much like hard work...
Click to expand...
Well I can't really access the evidence in private Court forums, but as a member of that court, I still hold him responsible for poor or unclear rulings on cases and reviews. This in addition to his refusal to simply answer clarifying questions in the manner asked of him so that everyone could clearly understand the ruling.
 
What blowup on IRC? Can logs be posted as the RA is presumably going to have to vote on this recall, the RA needs to see the logs of the blowup that has been referred to.

We have the right to a transparent government.

I demand the unedited logs be posted here. Punk doesn't spend long periods on IRC so it should be from his joining to his leaving without gaps.
 
SillyString:
You're free to demand what you wish, but punkd was not on IRC to the best of my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Then I fail to see why we are recalling Punk D for a blowup that he was not part of.
 
Because this is a discussion and topics change.

The blowup on IRC relates to the number of people dissatisfied with the ruling and seeking clarification, something which, this complaint alleges, punk d refused to do.
 
Clarification has been given by Gracius Maximus and further clarification has been given by Hileville with regards to the questions asked.

Does Punk D still need to answer them? I see no point in that since they are already answered. Shouldn't the recall be withdrawn now?

If this is still an issue, post the logs. Presumably it was GM online for it and not Punk D. Post it so the RA can see the situation.
 
Formal Debate on this proposal has ended and it is now in the queue, and must be seconded within two days before a vote will be scheduled.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Seeing a motion and a second, this will move to a vote in a reasonable period of time.

EDIT: Whoops, looks like I forgot my own procedures. The recall motion will remain in Formal Debate until 2013-06-15 at 2 AM GMT, at which time it will enter the queue, with two days to gather a second. Tyler's second is premature, as motions to second are not considered during Formal Debate. The proposal will need to be seconded again once it enters the queue in about 8 hours from this edit. A guide to understanding the new procedures may be found here, in the opening post.

Since there is no associated text with a recall motion, I will be looking into modifying the procedures to allow for a slightly different process for recalls.
Click to expand...
-__-

I FUCKING SECOND THE MAN'S RECALL. NOW PLEASE MR. SPEAKER SEND IT TO A VOTE!
 
Sorry you're distressed, Tyler. The procedures for moving a proposal to vote were recently changed, and seconds come a little later in the process than they used to, to allow a proposal to be debated a bit more actively before the text is finalized. Admittedly, since they're no associated text for a recall, I should probably revisit that point, but for now, it's what is in effect.

Check out the link in the post of mine you quoted for a guide to understanding the new procedures, and let me know if you have questions.

Having received a second while in the queue, I have scheduled a vote on this matter to begin at 10 PM GMT on 2013-06-16.
 
Apologies to everyone for missing the opening of this vote, and many thanks to SillyString for opening it in my stead. She will continue to administrate this matter to its conclusion. Thanks again!
 
Abbey Anumia:
Okay, if there's one thing I learned from the crap that I got over the few months I spent on the Court, is that if you've got a lot of people saying that they can't figure out what your ruling is saying and that it's unclear, then it probably is. Or, at least, for the intents of purposes of having an actually useful ruling bank, it's pretty much useless. If the only people who can understand a ruling are those who made it, you've got a -serious- problem on your hands.

However, that's a little bit of a sidetrack. I don't think making a crappy ruling and being obstructive about answering questions on it is in itself a reason for recall, especially as I can understand why it happens, having done it myself.

Saying that, I think a lot would be gained here from the Court trying for a moment to take a step back, out of the defensive. I know it's bloody hard, I pretty much couldn't do it, but for the sake of the region -try-. Mistakes get made and they have to be acknowledged, and ignoring questions on rulings purely because you think that the person asking them has to be -really- stupid to want to ask them (hint, they're probably not) never ends somewhere good.
Click to expand...
:clap: :clap: :clap: A whole lot of self-realization and humility; very impressive.
Crushing Our Enemies:
Sorry you're distressed, Tyler. The procedures for moving a proposal to vote were recently changed, and seconds come a little later in the process than they used to, to allow a proposal to be debated a bit more actively before the text is finalized. Admittedly, since they're no associated text for a recall, I should probably revisit that point, but for now, it's what is in effect.

Check out the link in the post of mine you quoted for a guide to understanding the new procedures, and let me know if you have questions.

Having received a second while in the queue, I have scheduled a vote on this matter to begin at 10 PM GMT on 2013-06-16.
Click to expand...
:clap: :clap: :clap: A whole lot of patience and professionalism.
 
A thank you to those who did not support the recall.

Also - thank you Abbey for your earlier comment. It's much appreciated.
 
punk d:
A thank you to those who did not support the recall.

Also - thank you Abbey for your earlier comment. It's much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Noting that only 1/3 of the RA (22 out of 65) are against you being removed from office, Punk D, I have a question for you: Will you seek re-election in the Judicial elections in July? How do you hope to receive enough votes when so many citizens are opposed to you serving as a Justice?
 
SillyString:
The vote is now closed. Here are the results:

AYE: 7
NAY: 22
Abstain: 7
Click to expand...

While 22 may only be 1/3rd of the entire Regional Assembly, it is quite clear that this recall was quite strongly defeated. It is also unclear how everyone would have voted, so I think the implication that 2/3rds of the RA do not support Punk D is not entirely correct.
 
mcmasterdonia:
SillyString:
The vote is now closed. Here are the results:

AYE: 7
NAY: 22
Abstain: 7
Click to expand...

While 22 may only be 1/3rd of the entire Regional Assembly, it is quite clear that this recall was quite strongly defeated. It is also unclear how everyone would have voted, so I think the implication that 2/3rds of the RA do not support Punk D is not entirely correct.
Click to expand...
That's not what I meant to imply, as that would be incorrect. I meant at least 7 members, and possibly others as well. We cannot accuratey gauge it, but it seems a relatively high for a recall vote:

Grosseschnauzer - 8
Eluvatar - 31
Kingborough - 1
Gaspo - 1
Pasargad - 22
Punk D - 4
Hileville - 2
Eluvatar - 5
Punk D - 7

On a personal note, I think you've been doing a good job, but there may be issues with you that I just am not aware of. The citizens of TNP have the right to a fair trial and if you are impeding that in some way it is a serious matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top