Aaron Burr the art of the compromise

Aye

Aye. But only AFTER I GET unbanned and get a personal apology meme from Incognito for banning me for naughty words from imgflip Gov.
Otherwise hell no.

Aye

Specifically, I cast a provisional “aye” that presumes I’m the acting Senator from PoliticsTOO, though I’ve not been told that, and I’m fuzzy on who’s actually in Senate at the moment.

The art of the compromise act of 2022

This bill aims to give IG a shot at earning his membership back, while preventing any more drama. If IG goes completely unbanned for 4 months straight section 1-3 go out of effect and IG can remain in the stream. Section 4 however stays in effect indefinitely.

If passed by the house and the senate and signed into the law by the president, and approved by the owner, the following will go into effect:

IG will be extended the offer of being unbanned if and only if these demands are met:

1. A full and detailed apology on his mistakes posted to this stream, as well as a list of ways he can avoid making these mistakes in the future.

2. All members banned in the imgflip government stream without trial will be unbanned.

3. Basically, IG forfeits his right to a trial. Every moderator is granted the power to ban IG only up to 24 hours without trial, due to the fact that the owner already ruled him guilty. Owner can of course perma ban if necessary. This is only permitted so that if the owner is offline and IG is causing a ruckus a moderator can step in.

4. Basically,If the owner has to perma ban IG even one more time, it will be a criminal offense to unban IG. He is not to be unbanned by anyone or that person can be prosecuted in the court of law. Of course, any unbans before the passing of this bill does not count.

Guess that’s fair. Aye

NAY

Nay

This is no compromise. This is just a continuation of injustice towards a member.
NAY

I think I could’ve gone a lot harsher with these demands, if he wants his membership he’s gonna have to swallow his pride and do something other than claim complete innocence. And that’s if scar agrees as well, he’d be lucky for this to even pass congress.

So you are wanting praise because the terms weren't more unjust? It appears that he was banned on a whim by Scar. So these terms are completely unacceptable for a stream that pretends to be a democratic process.
The terms aren't even being debated in Congress. Is it true you just drew them up.
I think this stream should change it's philosophy and be a pretend despotic government. At least it would be more consistent with how it actually runs.

You don’t have a coherent argument your just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Img_Flip isn't exactly the best place for arguments with any kind of complexity.
Let me try to break down what I'm saying:

1) You wrote the terms of the "compromise". The terms should have been debated and adopted by Congress. All Congress gets to do is vote yea or nay on a pre-packaged set of terms that were put together by a single person with that person's set of prejudices. You think it's a fair compromise, but that doesn't mean it is. That's only one man's opinion. Having a compromise worked out by the two opposing sides in Congress has a better chance of being an actual compromise, then your single point of view.

2) You tried to find common ground between those who don't want IG back at all and those "who think he should just get a slap on the wrist.". This is a false dichotomy. Here's why I think that:
2a) IG was banned for a month for a violation of the TOS, buy having alts, which he fessed up to. This was fair because he violated a previously issued set of rules. The ban was a month and he serve his time.
2b) IG returned and was immediately set upon by those who don't like him and was banned again for for 2 days for a language violation. Truth be told I'm not really clear on why this ban was enforced (this should probably be looked at), but okay, it was only two days, let's agree that was also fair. He again served his time.
2c) he returned again and was almost immediately perma banned for reasons that are completely unknown and uncommunicated. This is where the injustice is most egregious. If it was by whim with no due process, then we are a despotic government and power can be taken by the Powers-that-be at anytime for any reason.
So the point here is this is not a slap on the wrist. he was punished he served his time and unless there is a sufficient reason to have perma banned him, he has been treated unjustly.

3) Your "compromise" appears to me to simply be adding additional sanctions to the punishments he has already served, which simply adds to the injustice that has been forced on him. How many more punishments will the powers-that-be add to his membership? Moreover, if he was banned unfairly, then he should simply be immediately unbanned and his full rights to membership restored.

No response to my extended comments?

i dont think theres a point, leave your nay and get on with your life bruh lmao.

There are several points, but you either can't figure it out or don't want to. Either way it calls into question your competence to be in any kind of leadership. My Nay stands

good for u.

Thanks

I didn’t ask for praise, I’m putting up a compromise between those that think IG should never be allowed back, and those like yourself that think he should just get away with a slap on the wrist.

Why do you think I initiated a congress vote?

A vote on terms that were already written. The terms themselves should have been drafted by Congress. And I never said a slap on the wrist, if he actually did something wrong. He was banned for a month because of alts which was a TOS violation. Okay fair enough, but the penalty was a month ban and he served it.
He came back and was immediately jumped on by members who don't like him and he got a two day ban for "language"? I'm still not clear why the 2 day ban frankly.
Then he was unilaterally banned by Scar for what exactly? Whim? This seem to have been an "I don't like him" ban. If so - unfair. I have heard no other accusations other than he was simply banned and I had a private conversation with Scar.
At what point does the ban equal the punishment? The terms of this "Compromise" seem to me to be adding additional penalties for punishments already served.
So I wouldn't call lifting an unfair ban "allowing him back with a slap on the wrist". The guy has been punished. How many times are the Powers-That-Be going to beat on him?

Nay