Ler's campaign thread

It's also kind of fun that Ler is the one who proposed term limits during his last period in office.

Look at what you're voting for people: perhaps the least stable and most inconsistent member of the forums. This isn't the first time he's had crazy mood swings that made him do ridiculous nonsense, and it certainly won't be the last. Consider electing someone who's less terrible at the job, who won't quit twice while in office, and who won't be prone to constant emotional tirades. It doesn't matter if you like Ler, the fact of the matter is that every other past Tribune and current candidate has a better track record than he does.

Personal insults? None of what I said is false, nor is any of it an insult. Ler has by far the worst record of any past Tribune and it's obvious from his own campaigning thread that nothing whatsoever has changed. He's routinely abused his position and was removed from power for it, and he's also (self-admitted many times, including recently) prone to wild mood swings that very much do affect his behavior on the forums.

Ler is hardly terrible at his job, despite having panic attacks every now and then. He has proposed good rules in the past, had good ideas and stood up for members when you acted this way Kali. Stuff like that post Fey replied to is the exact reason he dislikes you so much (along with others) and the exact reason you two have had issues.

If Ler is so good at his job, why is it that he's the only Tribune to ever be removed from office? Why is it that he's the only Tribune to receive a warning while in office? Why is it that he's the only Tribune to repeatedly announce his resignation or plans to go on indefinite leave? Apparently the only way to get him out of his crazy episodes is to be talked down by his personal clique, and even then it's entirely temporary.

Anyone can propose rules. If that's what people want out of Ler, then let him do that through a Tribune, not as a Tribune. You honestly can't pick someone who will be worse in the job.

Ler would not make the same mistake again, he merely complained to friends that he thought he was going to be banned and yes he mentioned the names of those who he thought were going to ban him. Was it wrong? Yes he shouldn't have. Does it make him so horrible? It was a mistake, he did not do it out of malicious intent or to purposefully break the tribune code.

People, would you seriously put someone in office who is prone to panic attacks, cronyism, negligence, and absenteeism? Consider the alternatives. Any of them. I guarantee you that they will not suffer from any of the problems that Ler does, and they all promise to listen to user suggestions. In this way the public office is held by a stable, competent individual, and all of Ler's wily schemes can still be suggested.

But what you're doing here and now is just irresponsible; honestly consider the implications of what you're doing in a real political context and you will see the absurdity of electing Ler once more.

Also consider that Kali has more reason than anyone in the world to dislike Ler and not want him elected. Because of a lot of insulting posts towards groups on this forum that Ler has stood up for. They weren't rule breaking but still. Ler has been an active tribune, if you want to talk about absent, we have had far more inactive ones.

Right, I actually don't want Ler elected because he's a terrible, terrible Tribune, but sure I don't like him either. Ler has a tendency to categorize anything that remotely offends him as hate speech or a personal insult, even if he's not an involved party and the case clearly isn't an issue of hate speech or a personal insult.

But look at him from an objective point of view. Knowing nothing about Ler except for his performance in office, could you seriously consider him for reelection? I've certainly never heard of any candidate in history that has repeatedly threatened to quit, broke the law, violated their sole obligation as a public official and had their status removed as a result, and suffered from numerous emotional/psychological breakdowns while in power being elected to another term.

they know kali is not no a very horrible person i is tyhat is no bad, i wan ler to for be at tribune

Yes he categorized it as such but it was because he was frustrated with the way people were being treated by you and others, Kali. It was not rule breaking but it was driving members away and he felt he had to do anything he could.

Aye naw lad dunna get up in es' face an all cause et' gettin on me noggin and al after sort out yer writs.

It's clear that the only reason you want Ler in office is because you consider him your friend. You can't defend his actions, only his character.

While I appreciate your support, it would be best if we didn't resort to trolling. Thank you guys for the thought, though.

I'm not going to lie and say I'm not friends with Ler but it is not the sole reason I support him. I have stated that he has made mistakes and I also don't believe he will make them again. I have seen him stand up for members that have been nearly forced off the site by the actions of some and isn't standing up for the members of the site one of the main reasons we have tribunes?

I for one I do not see that as a bad thing but thats my oppinion. And any way stop being a prevocative back-side and go bitch and moan somewhere else! If you would old chap.

Attacking me is not synonymous with defending Ler. His actions are entirely inexcusable, and there's no doubt in my mind that people would kick him out of office the moment they could if they judged him on what he's actually done and not how they personally feel about him.

Stop spamming teremaster.