I've been dithering about whether I had anything useful to say about the charter and a hearing and the democracy matter. I'm still dithering about whether it's useful, but I do want to say one thing, and that will exhaust my energy for the topic.
The Charter was primarily designed as a document drafted by equals within a community for equals within a community. While there are exceptions to this--the sectioning off of TOE comes to mind--it was a guiding principle for at least some of us who worked on it, and I think it's a good one.
Someone who wanders in with a single digit post count, no history with anyone here, and then stirs up shit, for whatever reason, with whatever intent, is NOT a member of this community. Thus, treating him as if he were is not a good application of the Charter. He is really closer to the drive-by porn spammer and should be (in my opinion) dealt with as such.
Now, if people think a hearing is still the best method for addressing the issue, go to it. But do so knowing it's not the situation that tool was designed for.
That's it for me. Good luck.
Axordil -
You bring up good points, and I think others such as Anthy have brought up the same, please forgive me, I know others did as well, i am sort of getting a bit numb here trying to reread everything over and over.
The point is, no matter if we like it or not, the charter is very specific on what the rangers can do to a member who is found to be in violation of that same charter, and the powers imposed upon rangers when a new member elects to start off on a wild rampage are clear, but "democracy" technically joined over a year ago. Granted, I never even noticed him up until a week or so ago, when he started posting "publicly" but he WAS here, and several members here admit to having contact with him and to responding back to him, never mind his alternate personas on other boards. I noted them, but I never made any direct connection until after the facts of what transpired HERE. That is what we deal with, what occurred here.
As I keep stating, if you do not like the way that the current charter works, start up something to change it. "democracy" is currently still sequestered in the BR, and now that a formal hearing has been requested, that is where he will stay except for access to the jury room when he is notified of it and invited to participate. If he chooses to show up or not is nothing that anyone here can control, but, as others here (many of them) have pointed out, if no action is taken on this current altercation, then we can hardly state anything about if and when democracy returns and perhaps starts up the same sort of stuff.
Turning a blind eye to this only invites abuse, because by turning the blind eye we are saying that what this charter states means nothing. That indeed may be very well the case if were left up to a vote, but in the meantime, we deal with what we have.
My thoughts on democracy personally have to remain my own as long as I act as a "ranger." Just as I hope I would try and stay neutral if it were any other of you people getting involved in something that ticked you off.
As far as the other rangers, we are all in complete agreement that what has transpired here is well within other members' rights to file formal complaints on. That is what we are acting on, that is what we were appointed to do. None of us finds it pleasant or stimulating or like "Wow, we get to test out the charter!!"