It's time

This reasoning behind this objection is objectively invalid for a multitude of reasons of which I will now list.

The reasoning without elaboration is too vague to understand. We can presume what an elaboration of the reasoning for this objection would be, perhaps by "literally no point" he is referring to the lack of a Minecraft account. There are multiple reasons why that possible reasoning is invalid: for one, there is no requirement. Not only that, but there is legal precedent that not having a Minecraft account is perfectly acceptable just by the fact that a prior reinstatement was approved. For a bonus, as a Charter Admin, it is explicitly stated that there is no activity requirement.

Of course, perhaps, that was not the implied reasoning of the objection. Perhaps there was no implied reasoning, and it is just that, there is literally no point for me to become an Admin. Well, that is true, but that could apply just as well to every single possible applicant due to many different possible interpretations as to what a 'point' could be. It's also invalid because there is not a requirement for there to be a 'point'.

While this analysis may be ignored and doesn't guarantee a change of vote, it is in my right to point out flawed objections.

I've removed my reason since you guys won't stop bitching about it.

Objection - I'm don't understand all this meaningless nonsense where him becoming an admin is sort of a joke. He isn't going to do anything with his role so whats the point in having it.

i just think its funny how a reinstatement that is basically undeniable has stretched out this long and caused a flame war

This objection follows similar invalid reasoning as the other one did. To address this one specifically, this reinstatement is not a joke. This is a legitimate application for reinstatement, therefore it should be voted on and decided as it is one. The problem with the latter reasoning is that having a point to have the role is not a requirement, neither is doing anything with the role. You may argue that it should be a rule that if you don't have a "point" to have a role, however that has no legal basis and therefore the objection reasoning is invalid. I have earned the role previously, and I have also became a Charter Admin. It is explicitly stated in legal policy that Charter Admins do not have an activity requirement, therefore objecting for something perfectly legal is ridiculous. There is legal precedent that you do not need a Minecraft account.

Vouch because as a senior and charter admin the technicality of having a minecraft account is irrelevant.

I'd rather have a public conversation on the topic seeing as your comment implies there's evidence which would be critical in being able to give input on this thread accurately. Unless such evidence does exist, then the suspension itself was null and void because you have 0 facts to back up the suspension. It was a he-said, she-said situation to which you used your powers to unilaterally make a decision that Wilee was unable to argue against.

The situation: Wilee used his senior privilege under the SPaS program to give admin to this user.

The suspension: I cannot find a specific suspension thread, and I looked for a bit so I would love for someone to point it out if such a thread does exist, it was this specific post. As one can see by that post, it's using a "Note" from this thread which outlines the procedures for TPaS, SPaS and OPaS's, as the basis for the suspension. The problem here being the phrasing "If it's determined" to which I do not believe was established.

The proof: Basically there was none at all. I think the vast majority of admins are unqualified before they get admin, and I would go with the easiest such example for me as being myself. I had just been taken off of the permban list a few days before being given admin, and in no right was I correctly qualified at that time but given the chance I took it and here I am almost 6 years onward. Now we compare that situation to the one in question where we have an individual that had been in trouble previously before the SPaS took place, and when questioned upon this issue Wilee gave a fair answer. In response to this you asserted a claim to which you can't possibly know the actual truth, unless there is some unreleased evidence such as logs, dm's, etc.
|
|
--> Your interpretation of a situation is not conclusive to the point of determination (cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in. 2. ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.) and is therefore null & void, ie; the suspension was and is invalid

Furthermore you put upon Wilee an unprecedented burden to which has never been the standard. The policy, as previously linked, does not require Wilee to directly train him and by setting this as a standard you emplaced your own bias about the pick into the official process and therefore again nullified such an action (ie; suspension). In fact, it specifically states as much "or you can find another admin who volunteers to train the pick". Wilee did reach out to me and while I was inactive at that point I was unable to respond in a speedy manner, and by the time he would have went to ask another individual he had already been suspended. This alone, despite everything else outlined, displays a lack of due process and nullifies any such actions placing this thread itself moot as Wilee should not even be having to apply again for a rank that never should have been taken away in the first place.


Information used:
totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/61280/spas-announcement
totalfreedom.boards.net/user/22657
totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/61130/getoof-warning-request
totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/35897/tpas-spas-super-program-policy
puu.sh/CalM4/18f1d841e7.png
puu.sh/CalMz/4df9a23355.png
puu.sh/CalMY/38344fa204.png
puu.sh/CalNt/8eb148c951.png
puu.sh/CalNK/cac2b79835.png