Deposition of Pollard, to be completed within 24 hours. [NOTE: ONLY SLOTH- AND POLLARD MAY COMMENT HERE.]

Do you believe this Congress adequately represents the stream’s wishes?

Yes, I do because they were appointed by officials that were elected and there are Congressmen from lots of different parties. They are mostly either RUP or HCP voters because they were the two biggest parties last time.

Do you support the impeachment of IncognitoGuy?

No, I think that IG had an opinion that LGBTQ content should be marked NSFW. He kept it to himself until he started acting upon it. He respects the community and people on this stream, just not their images.

Is the “anti-LGBTQ law” no longer in effect?

yes

Only Pollard please.

If there are LGBTQ memers running for office in the next election, and the current government is censoring or deleting or over-marking as NSFW their LGBTQ-related content, does that pose a direct threat to the integrity of the campaign and the election?

If IG is moderating content made by someone who happens to be a member of a group which has other members running in an election, that doesn't suddenly make IG guilty of rigging the election for those people. That is a crazy accusation. I've answered all of your questions so can I go now?

I may have follow-up questions for you.

I already answered your questions, how many answers do you need? I understand you need to investigate it thoroughly but this is getting kind of ridiculous.

We’re wrapping up here. Some of your answers didn’t answer the question, just cleaning that up.

You’ve answered a convoluted hypothetical that absolves IG of guilt.

I asked a different question. Read it and answer.

A meme stating “God hates f*gs” — is that appropriate for PRESIDENTS stream even as a joke?

I thought it was a pretty dark joke, but I've seen worse things on here that haven't gotten as much whack. It's definitely not bad enough for IG to be impeached, lose his mod, or get kicked out of the party he literally founded lol. But I do kinda understand why the image was unfeatured.

Is RUP committed to non-discrimination as a matter of policy and principle?

My answer is pretty much the same as the free speech one.

Is RUP committed to free speech as a matter of policy and principle?

Yes. And I know you're trying to get us to say IG doesn't belong in the party because you think he isn't committed to free speech. But I think he does support free speech and plus he's the freakin' owner of the party so I guess he decides if he's welcome in his own party. Also we're a pretty big party with a lot of different opinions and views, we welcome a. lot of people.

Mudslinging rule violation, and you’re not allowed here.

If you were to attack me for censoring dog memes on the cats stream, I’d say the same thing.

It’s the very most basic way of explaining this tiresome issue. This is why you won’t find conservative memes in liberal streams, or liberal memes in conservative streams, or Satanic memes in Christian streams, or boobs memes in anti-porn streams, or homophobic memes in LGBTQ streams.

Imgflip as a whole allows all those kinds of memes as long as they are in their appropriate places. Basic organization.

Now: Is RUP (and really just IG) allowed to turn IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS (500+ followers, roleplay, open to all in theory, etc.) into homophobic stream simply by winning an election?

That’s the core issue in this impeachment trial.

What qualifications are expected of members of Congress?

I think they must post something at least every week and vote on at least a few Congress Votes throughout their term.

Do you believe pro-LGBTQ content is appropriate for PRESIDENTS?

I don't really know how I'm supposed to answer that because it really depends on the specifics of what the content actually is. This is a pretty loaded question.

I’ll give you an example — an openly LGBTQ memer running for office posts a meme incorporating an announcement template which contains gay pride flags and/or a reference to their sexuality. The substance of the meme has something to do with a recent occurrence on PRESIDENTS.

Appropriate?

It shouldn't be deleted. But it could maybe be NSFW. idk I haven't been a mod for very long and I haven't seen an example like that irl so don't take my word for it.

Have you ever had to unmark NSFW on LGBTQ-related memes for PRESIDENTS that IncognitoGuy has modded? If so: about how many times?

IG does his job and I do mine. In the past I have done it around 4 or 5 times but I don't do it often. But now I have to admit, once or twice my unmarkings were not always necessary.

Do you swear or affirm that the responses you give here are your own, and not written or influenced by anyone else?

None of these responses were written by anyone else. But I did receive advice from IG before I started answering these questions. He told me to be careful and think my answers through. But he didn't give me any specific answers. I wrote all of these myself.

Please state your full name and title for the record.

HoC Pollard.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Yes.

What are some examples of content that is appropriate to mark NSFW?

Swear words, nudity, disgusting things like snot or poop, discussing adult things like sex, people wearing revealing clothes like bikinis, blood and gore, that sort of stuff. If they're not really related the the stream they shouldn't even be featured tbh.

Do you believe that threatening to fire someone for reporting or speaking out about an issue of discrimination on PRESIDENTS stream is retaliation?

I'm pretty sure you're talking about when you left the Cabinet. But all IG did was say you betrayed him and the government because you did actually do that. Also, you quit your role and you didn't even get fired anyway. If you think what IG said was a threat then haven't you been threatening IG this entire time?

Move to strike as non-responsive. I asked a general question, you’re talking specifics. I’m not the one on trial here and answering questions with questions is improper form. If I want to ask you a specific question about my situation I will.

A yes or no answer will do for this question and many others. Whole paragraph responses could get burdensome, but it’s up to you.

If a mod of PRESIDENTS stream were found to have been in consistent violation of the Imgflip Terms of Service on the PRESIDENTS stream, would it be justifiable for an Owner or sitewide mod to remove that mod regardless of any impeachment trial?

Yes, but I think I know what you are trying to do here. I also think that IG has not broken the TOS. The owners and site mods have no reason to remove his mod powers.

Are you aware IG has been given multiple comment timers for content he’s posted on PRESIDENTS?

Some of his stuff is kinda controversial, but a lot of the time it looks like the site mods are being pretty biased and targeting him. Like one time he got a comment timer during an election. You said IG is election meddling, but why isn't that election meddling? And a two day long posting ban is way too harsh.

Do you believe the RUP constitution allows IncognitoGuy to, as he claims, serve as a judge in his own impeachment trial by casting a vice-presidential tie-breaking vote?

If you can give me any rules in the Constitution that says he can't do that then I agree that he shouldn't do it. But the Constitution says he is allowed to break ties. I agree that it's pretty weird how he could decide whether he's impeached but right now it looks like those are the rules. Sounds outrageous but it's technically true.
Also it's the IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS constitution not the RUP constitution.

The problem with calling it an IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS Constitution is that it was drafted by RUP and very few people signed off on it other than RUP appointees. Certainly the Owners of the stream have never agreed to be bound by it, and whatever it says, it cannot overturn Imgflip TOS.

1. The RUP is in power right now so why are you surprised we have RUP Congressmen?

2. The percentage of HCP Congressmen is actually very similar to the percentage of the vote they won in the election.

3. And you made the bank bill so why didn't you call it the sloth bank bill?

4. The owners are literally there to uphold the rules and going against the Constitution which means they're not doing their job.

5. Nothing about the Constitution or IG's tie-breaking vote goes against the TOS.

IG’s assertion that he’s entitled to a tie-breaking vote in his *own impeachment trial* may be the technical result of the language, but it violates basic common-law principles against being the judge of your own case.

Would you agree the Constitution didn’t anticipate every situation that could arise, and we ought to read it in accordance with common sense as well?

No offence, but I'd personally take the words of the Constitution above someone who's been impeached lol.

You do realize IG is being impeached right now? According to your logic — how do you value his word?