On 8/27/05, Jed Stancato Camarilla Email <xavier_oconnor@...> wrote:
> This does not mean that a primary officer must remove
> his application for an assistant position, but an
> officer can remove his application from consideration
> for a primary office.
Yes, an officer /may/ remove an applicant from the pool for any reason
he wants (or none at all). But it is that officer's decision. I
haven't seen anything direct from the RST, but I hear that he will
/choose/ to enact this right if Jason applies to be DST even after his
sentence has been served. And it's my opinion that such an action
would necessitate a very, very good explanation. To use his
discretion in that way would be a definitive show of support for the
actions which a large portion of the Domain seems to feel were
inappropriate. I for one would not be placated by another application
of "soft rules" that "require" this action. It's his discretion, it's
his choice, and saying he has to, or that it's policy is a smoke
screen.
Jason was a good DST. He was fair and just and he stood up for the
Domain's concerns. He stood a bit too strongly and, it seems, that
the Camarilla as a whole agrees he went too far. If Jon chooses to
continue that punishment, that's Jon telling us that he doesn't think
Jason was a good DST and that he can't be a good DST in the future.=20
He can think that, but that's his opinion and acting on that opinion
comes with consequences, the least of which will be losing my respect
completely.
- Donald Sheldon
US2002022644