Imgflip Logo Icon

If anyone has even more evidence of OP and Surly's impeachable offences please do share.

If anyone has even more evidence of OP and Surly's impeachable offences please do share. | I PROPOSE THAT WE IMPEACH
OLYMPIANPRODUCT AND
SURLYKONG69 FROM CONGRESS; REASONS ARE LISTED
IN THE COMMENTS | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
365 views 2 upvotes Made by anonymous 3 years ago in IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS
Congress memeCaption this Meme
84 Comments
5 ups, 3y,
2 replies
Nope.
You gotta have a crime first and a trail secand.
You have no criminal charges against me.
You can't impeach me without a criminal offense.
Read the law.
5 ups, 3y
●Making memes about the AUPs fake ignorance isn't a crime. It's politically protected speech. JOKES about negative IQs aren't TOS violations, they're just funny memes. Obviously funnier to people that UNDERSTAND the joke, but that's splitting hairs.
●Making references to people's unfortunate alting behavior isn't a TOS violation either, since I have more than ample evidence of multiple IG alts. This is politically protected speech.
●Memes about long lines at the DMV are as old as time itself. Classic jokes that old and established are certainly not offensive or TOS violations and again: protected political speech.
●The final charge: quoting the law to Incognito, is laughable. It is his responsibility as a political candidate to read the constitution. The constitution that, was made over multiple months and voted on by dozens of people. A president's [fake] inability to read the law would be more likely to show up as evidence against HIM, than the meme lawyer quoting the law to him. Again: political protected speech.
3 ups, 3y,
2 replies
The point is that a credible accusation has been leveled. You get to defend yourself in a court of Law.
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Wrong.
I don't know what tget do in Europe or wherever but here in America we have a crime first and a trial secand.
None of the supplied links are crimes: therefore there can be no impeachment.
Sidebar: read the constitution.
1 up, 3y
Monkee...the trial is to determine if a crime has been committed. The prosecution levels an accusation and the defendant gets to plead. If the plea is "not guilty" they move to a trial to determine guilt or innocence. That's how it gets done in America
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
This impeachment makes sense. Idk how people don't agree
2 ups, 3y
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Golly. You could write a whole book on the use of alts on Imgflip and when they’re generally permissible and when they’re not. You could also write a book on how alts have been used on the PRESIDENTS stream specifically by various people, including yourself. I’ve been accused of alting on this stream and laughed it off. I’m even friends now with those who used to do that. RMK and myself have taken to calling each other alts of one another as an inside joke. If every allegation of alting on PRESIDENTS (true or false) led to an impeachment, then pretty much everyone would be guilty & we’d have no government.

But let’s cut to the chase here.

You’ve admittedly used alts on PRESIDENTS stream to circumvent comment timers. If I’m not mistaken, your alts have also *themselves* been subject to modding for violating terms, which compounds the original violation. Your use of alts wasn’t too my knowledge as problematic as some others, and you’ve defended it as being necessary as an elected official to conduct government business while “censored,” but others are entitled to disagree with that. Using alts on PRESIDENTS stream brings it plainly within the scope of the mudslinging rule and makes it fodder for political ads.

I don’t see where you get away with defining these as “false” allegations. It’s true! And SurlyKong (and others) made them into ads — and why shouldn’t they?

(As for me, when it came to your impeachment, I didn’t even include your alts in my counts against you because there were so many other, in my opinion, more significant violations you were guilty of.)

So. As it turns out — the electorate (you could say) didn’t “buy” SurlyKong’s ads (about your alting and otherwise)… and you won the election!

There. That’s your victory.

But what you *don’t* get to do is politically persecute your defeated opponents after the fact to effectively deny CSP of seat the representatives of its choice. That’s an end-run around the whole concept of proportional government — a back-door way of returning to the bad old days when 90% of Congress had to carry the personal blessing of the ruling government.

I’m not even going to address your charges against OP. It’s plainly political free speech and, at worst, G-to-PG rated content. It’s not even NSFW and it’s definitely not impeachable. You run for office, you get attacked, within the mudslinging rule. That’s how it works.

Bottom-line: This is an attention-grabbing stunt by a sore winner.

Nay
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
Aye
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
There is a proposal on the floor of the Congress. Is this going up for a vote?
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y
There has to be a trial first. And it's eligible to begin because it has the necessary support.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Nay
[deleted]
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Did you not read all their offences?
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
I read most of them, and it appears ur just offended. The only ones I could understand are some of OPs. Plus, you need a trial to start an impeachment.
[deleted]
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
You know this isn't a vote, right? All I said was "I propose" not "Congress vote".

Plus none of this was about me being "offended". I provided several examples of OlympianProduct being a blatant hypocrite, as he deleted my content allowed other users to do the same, including himself (e.g. me getting a 2 day comment timer for saying "bodoh" and "pea brain" while OP also calls me "bodoh" and let's Envoy and Richard do the same and Surly say "negative IQ". Those are examples of OP's misuse of power. It's not me being offended.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Crap.

Surly use ‘Negative IQ’ in a humourous way, while you used ‘pea brain and bodoh’ in an insult (still not worthy of comment timers though imo).
[deleted]
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Then that's proof of OlympianProduct's misuse of power when he had the privilege of serving as a stream mod during his unelected term as Head of Congress.

Article 15 Section 3: IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS aims to model a democracy that is open to all community members regardless of their identity. All mods, including elected mods, have a responsibility to promote this vision. Modding the stream is a privilege, not a right, of being elected. If a mod is found to have abused their mod in serious and ongoing ways, then the Owner reserves the right to demod the mod pending an investigation.
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Abstain then.
[deleted]
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Again this isn't a vote. That's not until after the trial, which I've proposed here. It's already supported by myself, Pollard, and Cityarcade so it's ready to go ahead.
0 ups, 3y
Again, I forgot.
4 ups, 3y,
1 reply
You've spent some time on this I see
5 ups, 3y,
1 reply
It's called free speech and it's within TOS. As of right now, there's no rule against unrelated content.

If what count as TOS violations?

I suppose that may be something, but I don't know whether or not that applies to an impeachment for Congress, since he didn't hold office at the time. Are you sure it was because of "bodoh"? Or was it something else?

I don't know if OP held any office at that time, so that depends.

No.

I don't really think that counts as a right, but maybe that one can go to Congress.

How is that impeachable?

Again, not really impeachable (Cromwell was based though)
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Because that was when there was a rule regarding unrelated content in place

mm

I also see "..." at the end, meaning there's more. So, I can't say one way or another, because I don't know if there was something awful in the rest of the comment. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't.

I'm well aware

No

Not all, no

I don't actually think that is a TOS violation no, only if you were to openly voice your hatred

I dunno, but he had a tank named after him.
And hey, I'm not the one who's "infallible" pope supports gay marriage
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Dang! I'm not gonna have to go down the line of mods am I? That would be pretty unfortunate. Pollard will get his mod back as well when your 2 day ban is over.
Don't get USA_Patriot or Fak_u_lol to unban you, for their sake, and yours.
[deleted]
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Care to at least have the courtesy to provide a reason for the ban?
4 ups, 3y
You clearly need time to cool off. You're being overly aggressive about a game, which, by the way, you admit you don't even see as a game.
5 ups, 3y,
2 replies
You being butthurt is grounds for Impeachment?
[deleted]
1 up, 3y
That’s a lot of proof, bodoh
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
You can go for the ones about deleting comments

The rest, no

I'm on the fence about the attempt to restrict a user's choice in banning people if they hold office. There should be protection to at least discuss bills within reason. There's a difference between discussing and implementing. If I were to allow it, that would mean that you also are in danger of impeachment for trying to create a new constitution, which is in violation of the current constitution, and I would make sure people new that. So, maybe reconsider before you choose to press that one.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
"You can go for the ones about deleting comments"

So can the trial begin please?

"If I were to allow it, that would mean that you also are in danger of impeachment for trying to create a new constitution, which is in violation of the current constitution"

Using that logic half of Congress could be impeached because a lot of people opposed OlympianProduct's rule about no new constitution being made, so maybe reconsider before you choose to press that one.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
unblock surly first lol

uhhh, that's...... whatever, not worth arguing with you about it
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Ok fine I'll tell you that I've unblocked him but you can't possibly prove that I have. Happy now?

Good you've finally accepted you were wrong.
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
again, pretty easy, just comment on one of his memes

nope!
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Already answered this.

Then answer me, coward. Don't run away from arguments you're afraid you'll lose. That "uhhh, that's...... whatever, not worth arguing with you about it" comment basically proved you knew full well you were wrong, and that "nope!" admitted you're too stubborn to admit it.
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
k den

Well, see, there's this term, "ex post facto", so opposing that constitution back then was perfectly fine, but if you try and change it now (now that the security article is in there) you'd be out of line
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
"Well, see, there's this term, "ex post facto", so opposing that constitution back then was perfectly fine, but if you try and change it now (now that the security article is in there) you'd be out of line"

If you want to impeach me for that you'll also find yourself impeaching all the Congressmen who opposed that aspect of the constitution as well, since they thought we should be allowed to make another constitution.
0 ups, 3y
Look at my original comment about that XD
You're proving my point!
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
OP also made this stream: https://imgflip.com/m/Anti-Britain
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
To be fair, that might be because the old owner was deleted. If that happens a site mod becomes owner instead.
[deleted]
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Okay
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Still, judging by his previous behaviour, I'm not saying it's impossible he runs that stream. But it's unlikely imo
[deleted]
1 up, 3y
Yea
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
These aren’t charges XD, you can’t have a trial when you can’t name something that is actually against the law.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y
Yes they are and I've already provided the list of Constitution articles they violate.
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
4 replies
SurlyKong69 impeachment reasons:

If "pea brain" is a TOS violation according to OlympianProduct, why not "negative IQ"? https://imgflip.com/i/5zpnmv?nerp=1641293463#com16422622
https://imgflip.com/i/5qu91y?nerp=1641293570#com14938164
https://imgflip.com/i/5poaix?nerp=1641293597#com14758886

Falsely accused me of having alts:
https://imgflip.com/i/5zjg8m?nerp=1641293470#com16389890
https://imgflip.com/i/5pjcnh?nerp=1641293600#com14723603
https://imgflip.com/i/5pfcmp?nerp=1641293602#com14700195
https://imgflip.com/i/5pblv5?nerp=1641293602#com14700036

Abuse of power as DMV stream mod
https://imgflip.com/i/5za7ld?nerp=1641293474#com16347756
https://imgflip.com/i/5za7ld?nerp=1641293474#com16346883

Conspiring with OlympianProduct in his Constitution power grab mentioned in the above comment:
https://imgflip.com/i/5zlb5k?nerp=1641293465#com16410980
https://imgflip.com/i/5zopxs?nerp=1641293465#com16411782
https://imgflip.com/i/5zpnmv?nerp=1641293465#com16411931
[deleted] M
5 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Here’s a list of alts of yours that you have admitted to having to evade comment timers for violating Imgflip TOS just recently, I can go further back through the logs to find even more.
BrainsMadeOfPeasAreGross
CensoredForSayingPeaBrain
IGotTimeredForSayingPeaBrain
NotIncognitoGuy
[deleted]
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
And here's the crook himself. Surly accused me of having alts that I was continuing to operate secretly. I've never made an alt that wasn't clearly mine. But he falsely claimed JacobJune was me.
[deleted] M
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
I will investigate further to hopefully shed some light on this, because I have been quite curious about this myself. If what you are saying here is true, that you have never had any alts that you haven’t made clear were obviously you, I will publicly exonerate you myself.
1 up, 3y
Ooh he left that one on read, maybe u have him nervous 😬
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
For the first one, you either need to choose to bring that charge against SurlyKong, or to bring the comment deletion charges against OlympianProduct. You can't have it both ways.

The DMV one you can go for. I suppose it's up to interpretation whether a guilty verdict would result in removal of mod from the DMV, removal of Congress seat, or both.

The others, no.

Also, you're going to have to unblock SurlyKong if you want to continue this, he has the right to face his accuser.
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Well they were already going to be separate trials, but it cannot simultaneously be a TOS violation (your case against SurlyKong) and not a TOS violation (your case against OP). It doesn't work.

ye

Well, they're not even real offences

Eh, it's pretty easy actually, just comment on one of his memes
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
"Well they were already going to be separate trials, but it cannot simultaneously be a TOS violation (your case against SurlyKong) and not a TOS violation (your case against OP). It doesn't work."

Why not?

"Well, they're not even real offences"

You have no right excluding them from the trial Scar. This is the evidence and you can't withhold it.

"Eh, it's pretty easy actually, just comment on one of his memes"

Oh ok. But that's still not proof I've unblocked him lmao because I can still see a blocked user's memes if I go to his profile and even his comments if I click on "blocked comment" to reveal it. lol
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
cause I have 2 brain cells

well, I sorta can actually. I'm basically operating in the position the US house acts in with regards to articles of impeachment and all. The Senate (in our case, Congress) votes whether or not to convict. Why me? So a bunch of trash accusations don't get through to impeach anyone for anything.

Fine, be uncooperative
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Must suck to be you, but I guess it makes sense. I, on the other hand, have roughly 86 million.

It's evidence. You can't pretend it doesn't exist. If you think it won't get OP and Surly impeached then let Congress vote on it to prove your point. What are you afraid of, Scar? You think that they actually are impeachable offences.

It's not my fault your ideas are trash.
2 ups, 3y,
3 replies
Wow! Good counting!

bring your evidence in, I don't care, but the charge is crap, so that can't be something he gets convicted of
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Ok fine you bring forth the charges you want to and I'll show Congress the rest myself.
1 up, 3y
They're not getting voted on, and if you try to have them voted on, you will be thrown out
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Nah I just looked it up.

I already have all my evidence right here, and if you think the charge is "crap" prove it by having Congress vote on it to see whether they agree.
2 ups, 3y
Mm

Again, I filter stuff out so people can't just get impeached for anything
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
"filter stuff out"?! I have the right to present my evidence to Congress!
1 up, 3y
Go nuts, but the related charge will not be brought forth
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
You can't try and impeach OP for deleting stuff that's within TOS, and simultaneously try and impeach another user for saying the same sort of things you said, which, you claim are within TOS. Choose one.

You do have alts.

That could go to Congress for removal of his mod from the DMV I suppose, but I don't think that really applies to Congress.

No.
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
"You can't try and impeach OP for deleting stuff that's within TOS, and simultaneously try and impeach another user for saying the same sort of things you said"

Watch me.

"You do have alts."

Incorrect, and that's a false accusations so maybe reconsider before you choose to press that one.

"That could go to Congress for removal of his mod from the DMV I suppose, but I don't think that really applies to Congress."

What does it apply to then, genius?

"No."

Care to elaborate? You can't just refuse to try OlympianProduct for his offences because you said "no".
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
Ok, try all you want it's not happening then XD

Errr, yes you do, you've admitted it XD

Guess we'll never find out, genius

We've gone over this *smh*
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
If you're saying we'll have to hold two separate trials that's fine with me. But you have no right to stop an impeachment of another user because of your personal opinion.

You said I have alts. I do not have alts. The only thing I have admitted to is that I HAD alts. I do not HAVE alts. Read a dictionary.

We'll have to find out something because we're holding a vote on it right now and something has to happen if it passes so I'd expect the damn stream owner to have some clue about how this all works. 🤦‍♂️

No we haven't because all you said was "no" *smh*
1 up, 3y,
1 reply
2 trials was always the plan lol. Uh, it's not an opinion, something that's one thing, can not also be another thing that is diametrically opposed to it. Decide if you think it's a TOS violation or not.

Ok, then Surly HAS accused you of having alts, but is not currently accusing you of having alts, so we can't charge him
Besides, time is relative silly, read some Einstein ;)

That's... what I just said

Ok, we'll play that game
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
I think both their offences are impeachable offences. They're not "diametrically opposed" and I've already provided the evidence so you have no right removing it.

He accused me of having alts like two or three days ago. I haven't had an alt in weeks!

No, our two replies only shared three words. They were VERY different.

Is this all a game to you? Because judging by your careless responses it is. And I'm not sure how we can trust an impeachment trial with you if that's the case.
1 up, 3y,
3 replies
double-think lol

still in the past lol

ok big man, whatever you say

well, yes actually, because, ya know, it's sorta, supposed to be a game. That's the point
[deleted]
0 ups, 3y,
1 reply
"I don't care"

Not exactly behaviour you'd want to see from a stream owner handling an impeachment.

"Correct, your point?"

Your logic is stoopid

"keep pushing, see how that goes for you"

Well not if you refuse to let Congress vote on it we won't. What are you afraid of, Scar?
3 ups, 3y
who says?

cool

I'm not the one here who should be afraid XD
4 ups, 3y
Ok, we'll just cut straight to it then

You'll get your mod back in 2 days when your ban is over
3 ups, 3y
I don't care

Correct, your point?

yessir

keep pushing, see how that goes for you
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
Specific Constitution violations from both users

Article 15 Section 1: Moderators are responsible for enforcing the laws of IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS, the Imgflip Terms of Use, and keeping the Approval Queue clear.
(Olympianproduct failed to enforce site TOS fairly or correctly, and according to his logic Surly has violated the TOS several times)

Article 15 Section 3: IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS aims to model a democracy that is open to all community members regardless of their identity. All mods, including elected mods, have a responsibility to promote this vision. Modding the stream is a privilege, not a right, of being elected. If a mod is found to have abused their mod in serious and ongoing ways, then the Owner reserves the right to demod the mod pending an investigation.
(OlympianProduct abused mod several times)

Article 11 Section 2: The IMGFLIP_DMV is required to create a voter ID within 48 hours of the initial request in order for as many people to be able to vote as possible.
(As DMV mods SurlyKong69 and OlympianProduct both unfairly withheld voter ID from JacobJune)
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y,
1 reply
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

OlympianProduct gave me a 2 day comment timer for putting Vladimir Putin's face on peas, as he believed it alluded to the time I called him a "pea brain". But what about all the times I have been represented by James Bulger and King George III? Are they not worthy of deletion? Because there's so many examples, I found a smarter way of showing them all:

https://imgflip.com/m/IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS/tag/james+joseph+bulger
https://imgflip.com/m/IMGFLIP_PRESIDENTS/tag/king+george+iii
[deleted]
3 ups, 3y,
1 reply
This has all given me an idea; I'll look back at my notifications and all the links I've posted here to see just how much people have gotten away with, and whenever I post content at all similar to that I'll link to those examples as proof it evidently doesn't violate the TOS! :D
[deleted]
2 ups, 3y
Just tested it right here: https://imgflip.com/i/5zylve?nerp=1641296449#com16471818
Congress memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I PROPOSE THAT WE IMPEACH OLYMPIANPRODUCT AND SURLYKONG69 FROM CONGRESS; REASONS ARE LISTED IN THE COMMENTS