| RE: Truth and Reconcilation |
|
Just some thoughts on Belschaft's (fine) post.
I believe that a general policy of amnesty, although done in good spirit, would not set a good precedent for the use of political pardons; the Cabinet may have had good intentions, but they still committed actions that violated some of the most cardinal of rules in TSP's society – they, and, future people in similar positions need to know that how this has proceeded is unconscionable and that committing to an act of treason against the Coalition will hold consequences. In another case, several leading members of Osiris couped Osiris on New Years Eve; the Pharaoh, under the impression that Osiris would be split apart with drama if the members were not pardoned, pardoned those involved – but the truth is that the pardon only deferred the drama and muddied the rule of law in Osiris. A few months later, Osiris was caught in the Osiris Imperium War during the dog days of summer, then came the dramatic hollowing out of the state – two more unsuccessful coup d'etats during the interregnum – and a final coup by the Osiris Fraternal Order (OFO) by the end of the year. The point being is that general clemency did not generate goodwill, nor did it strengthen Osiris – at least not in the long term. I would suggest a different process of reconciliation: 1. All of those who left the Cabinet prior to Hileville's resignation should be granted a pardon. The reasoning for this is simple: we want to encourage people in the future to leave rogue administrations and the easiest way to do that is to show them that they will be forgiven. 2. Those who did not leave the Cabinet prior to Hileville's resignation should not be removed from the region immediately, barring the Hileville account, but they should face trial – a number of charges apply here, including Treason, Miscarriage of Justice and Corruption – but do bear in mind that while at one time, a Treason sentence was an indefinite ban from the region, we now have a Parole Board – and Cabinet members, if found guilty, could return to the region within the year on good behavior. 3. The relationship between the Forum Administration and the regional community needs to change. There shouldn't be “non technical” aspects to being a forum administrator – I've been decrying the way in which we idealize administrators as community leaders for some time now; by turning to forum administrators as moral authorities, we put unneeded stress on these officials, we de-democractize the region, and we make these positions extremely attractive to those who, while not interested in doing the technical workload as an administrator, want the “respect” that is bestowed to forum administrators.
5. The Charter proscribes that a Great Council should only take place every six months – and the community would be well advised to put “the saucer under the hot cup of tea” and follow those proscriptions. A Great Council to overhaul the region's constitution should be called for April and the time in between now and then should be used for brainstorming and avid discussions regarding what a future Charter should look like. 6. The bridge between the “forum community” and the “game community” is widening – the Local Council's recent calls to elect the delegate via regional polls should not be ignored. This divide between the region's forum and game community contributed to the security issues that the South Pacific faced – when the forum move was made, the attitude of many on the Regional Message Board (RMB) was that the coup was “not my problem” because it only affected forum-goers. The Coalition encompasses everyone in the South Pacific and bridging the gap between these two communities would ensure that in the future there aren't “threats to the in-game community” or “threats to the forum community”, but simply threats to the Coalition overall. For this to be achieved, some form of bicameralism (not simply in-game elections) needs to be devised. The Cabinet's decision to usurp the powers of the Assembly would have seemed far more nascent to residents if the Assembly had included residents themselves. I would suggest a system where the Assembly, split between two houses, one off-site and one in-game, have jurisdiction over some matters and shared jurisdiction over others depending on the relevance of those matters to citizens and residents. Quote: 7. Not to be Johnny Raincloud here, but while some of TSP's allies contributed admirably to the South Pacific's defense, there were two allies who noticeably did not support the Coalition in its time of need - and given those alliances have had a questionable history as regional partners as it is, there's a need for a parliamentary review in the near future of those treaties. Yes, I'm talking about Balder and Europeia. 8. Special Elections for the Cabinet should begin soon; the March elections should be canceled and this special Cabinet should serve until the July General Election. That puts TSP's election cycles back on schedule and the special cabinet could then oversee the Great Council throughout April-June.
Unibot's proposal, in regards to the treatment of who remained in the Transitional Government up until it's voluntary surrender, reads less like "Truth and Reconciliation" and more like "Crime and Punishment".
Again, the Transitional Government barely put up a fight and peacefully handed control back to The Coalition. This was a fairly bloodless coup and the opposition conducted themselves with a high degree of honor and decency. This very easily could have been far, far uglier. Unibot's logic seems to be that none of that matters and that every last one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I can assure everyone that the next time a coup occurs, this line of thinking will only encourage others, knowing that they have nothing to lose, to act as if they have nothing to lose. I'm not sure we want to be backing people, who were already desperate enough to coup, into an even further corner. Reminds me a bit of burning one's boats.
On the contrary, providing a general pardon of everyone involved discourages the practice of defections in the future. If future players know a general pardon is likely, they have no reason to defect (i.e., "nothing to lose" to use your phrase.) That's simple Game Theory. Encouraging the future practice of defections is more important for TSP's security than encouraging the future practice of full surrenders all together - why? Because full surrenders are unlikely and are usually precipitated by defections.
EDIT: Moreover, I do not think that serving a year-long sentence (in theory) is an unconscionably harsh punishment for committing treason. We created the Parole Board to ensure the criminal justice system was more reasonable, sustainable and to eliminate the need for political pardons. We have these systems in place for a reason, they ought to be put to use.
I think you've missed the fairly glaring fact that the Transitional Government was shut down shortly after it became clear that the region wanted the Coalition to be restored; when the regional WA population voted with their feet and started un-endorsing Hileville, he handed me the nation fully aware that I would shut everything down. Not a single member of the Cabinet ejected or banned nations to try and stay ahead, or in anyway attempted to prevent a return to the Coalition once it was clear that the region at large desired it. There was no effort to hang on to power, to force the region into accepting what the Cabinet wanted, or to simply cause damage out of spite. Hile spent pretty much the entire time trying to come to a compromise with Tsu that would unite the community and prevent violence; when that became impossible, he stepped aside as the region wished.
Punishing people for behaving in a manner we should want to encourage is asinine. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
I would seriously dispute the assertion that Hileville was working in good faith to find a compromise.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Unibot, this wasn't some small group of one of two players. This was the entire cabinet and significant portion of the Assembly. By proceeding with a mass punishment for such a large group of long time and dedicated TSP players we'd literally be making our own worst enemy and do nothing but deepen the resentment and divide among the two main political factions.
Also a year ban, itself, is no "light" sentence and there is zero guarantee that the ban would even be lifted after a year. (02-03-2016, 04:33 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Punishing people for behaving in a manner we should want to encourage is asinine. We do not want people to cancel the Charter unilaterally, Belschaft. We do not want people to usurp the powers of the Assembly. We do not want people to ignore the rulings of the High Court and the findings of the CSS. Defection should be rewarded with clemency to encourage defection among those who commit to treason. The full surrender only occurred because of a rational analysis of the coup's chances - the fear of losing a coup drives the rational behaviour of coupers - if you provide general amnesty to coupers, you encourage future coupers to stick with their coup until the last moment, until the rational calculus says "give up". If you offer selective pardons, you encourage those supporting coupers to defect before a coup goes sour - which is far more effective at undermining a coup than hoping for a full surrender. Kazmr brought NLO down, Scylla's defection hurt the Transitional Government's credibility greatly - it's defections that undermine coups because defections occur when a coup's future is uncertain, surrenders only occur when a coup's future is certain (usually compounded by the presence of defections.) Quote:Also a year ban, itself, is no "light" sentence and there is zero guarantee that the ban would even be lifted after a year. It is not a light sentence, but it is a proportional and reasonable one. (02-03-2016, 04:48 PM)Unibot Wrote: if you provide general amnesty to coupers, you encourage future coupers to stick with their coup until the last moment, until the rational calculus says "give up". No...it encourages people not to ban the every loving hell out of every nation in the region because they know the punishment for a relatively peaceful and bloodless coup isn't the same punishment we'd hand out for outright burning the region.
(02-03-2016, 04:39 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I would seriously dispute the assertion that Hileville was working in good faith to find a compromise. I wouldn't. I was in contact with Hileville and his cabinet. They were listening to me, and by extension, to the cabinet of The North Pacific as we sought a peaceful solution. He agreed to a council of treaty allies, after DM requested I arrange one and I was in the process of arranging it when everything ended.
Hileville ejected 3 CSS members just a day or two after Tsu tried to reach a compromise with him. I don't think it's very helpful to rewrite history so soon and paint Hileville as reasonable. Several people tried to compromise. Each time he entertained them, then rejected the compromise at the last minute.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
How the jurisdictions could work...
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |