| CSS Recall of Sam111 |
I would like to make a point, calling this a 'national crisis' or a 'coup' isn't going to change a thing about the situation. Arguing over what term to use when referring to a negative event is just silly. People view situations differently and we all have to accept the viewpoints of our fellows. Sandaoguo, Kris, Tsu, and everyone else on that side of this were really betrayed by people they were confident in. We have to consider that even if they believed they were justified it doesn't change that fact. I personally am using this post to address that myself.
Sand, kris, tsu, Faren, I really am sorry you guys had to go through that betrayal it was underhanded and uncalled for and while I was not a direct cause of it, I still want to take this time to recognize that suffering, my sincere condolences to you all. Now to everyone who is against the recall of Sam. It has been said seven million times already but: this is not a exile. Think about the people who make up the CSS team, kris and sand. These are both people who feel threatened and betrayed by Sam. Now by arguing against his recall you are asking sand and kris to play nice with someone that really hurt them like nothing happened. That is 1: ignoring the majority consensus of the css team and 2: ignoring their basic need for time to heal from this betrayal. I emplore everyone to allow this to be reopened to vote, and passed. We are not removing Sam from the region I personally would love to work with him on one of my numerous mora ambitions if he wants to. Sam is not an enemy of tsp, but he behave in a way that is not in alignment with how css members should behave, and he has left the other members of the team with toxic feelings directed toward him as a result. I have watched this thread since its beginning and I can tell, all sand and kris want is a workplace that doesn't include someone that betrayed them. As Sam has shown no interest in defending his point or apologizing to the parties he offended, I see no reason why this wish should not be respected.
Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.
Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.' I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P. Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo
With that, I will motion for another vote on the recall of Sam111 as a CSS member.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ProfessorHenn
Legislator
For good or ill, the attempt to remove Sam failed, but the facts are Hileville and his cabinet attempted a coup to reform the TSP. No amount of political posturing will change the fact that it was indeed a coup as well as a constitutional crisis. As I have stated before in the IRC during the coup, I would neither condemn nor support the ideas that led to the coup, but would make it clear that I disapprove of using the coup as a means to reform the TSP. That being said, I abstained from voting due to several factors.
1. While I have nothing against Farengeto and agreed with his ruling that the Hileville administration was wrong to attempt a forum change, his actions post coup have had the unfortunate effect of eroding trust within the TSP especially during the MoFA race. 2. the arguments for and against removing Sam were based on appeals to pathos rather than rational discussion 3. The arguments also shifted away from the topic at hand to whether or not the Constitutional Crisis was a coup or not. It was both. 4. I can not condemn a man in absentia which brings me to my last part 5. that this appeared to be more of a witch hunt than a genuine attempt to remove someone who has broken the trust of the TSP, as the one who brought the accusation clearly had an axe to grind against Sam regardless of whether or not he was innocent simply because he cast his lot with the Transitional government.
(03-06-2016, 09:35 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: For good or ill, the attempt to remove Sam failed, but the facts are Hileville and his cabinet attempted a coup to reform the TSP. No amount of political posturing will change the fact that it was indeed a coup as well as a constitutional crisis. As I have stated before in the IRC during the coup, I would neither condemn nor support the ideas that led to the coup, but would make it clear that I disapprove of using the coup as a means to reform the TSP. That being said, I abstained from voting due to several factors. Unfortunately Frost, it is not conducive to creating a productive CDs to include Sam as a member. And once again he is not being condemned. What you are asking of sand and kris is both wrong and impossible. Every member in the css has stated that they do not wish for Sam to be included as a member. I am asking us to step away from factual reasoning and consider emotional justice. Simply removing Sam from the Css is entirely different from witch hunting. If we were witch hunting we would be banjecting everyone that even considered hilevilles opinion as a valid one. The use of that term appears on the surface to be a shock and awe statement that was entirely unnecessary to include. In fact I guarantee it will be used in the majority to argue your points. To address your reasoning: 1:I see not how Farengeto's actions would affect this debate, for its subject is the recall of sam111 2: I see no issue with arguments appealing to emotion when considering an emotional ordeal. Kris and sand have strong toxic feelings for Sam and that can only serve to create an environment that will jeopardize tsp security through a lack of workplace teamwork and productivity. 3: I already addressed this, I would emplore you to ignore posts regarding this particular arguement for it was unnecessary and semantically. Allowing it to affect your judgement on the greater point of this discussion, the recall of sam111, would be short sighted 4: you are not condemning him, you are ensuring that all parties suffer least in this complicated and heated situation. Condemning him would be a permanent ban from tsp, and nothing less.
Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.
Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.' I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P. Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo
Before I respond to Serres, let me just clarify myself, I am NOT advocating that Sam should remain within the CSS. I have stated why I abstained from voting.
Now to address Serres: 1. Given the volatile and political nature of Sam's removal, Far's proposal had the unintended effect of being cast as a case of Victor's justice than an appeal to justice galvanizing an opposition. In addition there have been a fair amount of comments in the previous forum implying that Sam is a security threat and have alluded to seeking his removal which makes it possible that it is a witch hunt than an attempt at justice. Should the assembly remove Sam, what is to stop them from ejecting Sam from the region? 2. When we appeal solely to our emotions than reason, mistakes are made and more people are likely to steel their resolve to what they feel is best for their faction than the region. 3. It would indeed be much easier to ignore the unnecessary topics, but when they dare to obscure or embellish the facts and even try to distort the events of the coup to favor their side, that my friend is a gross miscarriage of justice. I can not in good faith vote for or against the motion when neither side can back up their claims. Therefore all I can do is step out of the way and allow the motion to pass or fail despite my reservations. 4. Yet there is the possibility of his ban following his removal should someone call for it.
Well said Frost, I personally do not believe that this action will evolve into complete removal of Sam from tsp, however I see the validity in the concern and can respect it.
In regards to emotional responses, allow me to reword myself, I believe that we should take emotional reasonings in to account, but not let them completely rule out judgement. We cannot ignore emotion in a community of this size, however there is validity in not letting it control our judgement. This is why we must look to law that has been established when emotion clouds our judgement. I personally believe a balance between both of these things is extremely important when making decisions in a community of this size. As for your third point. Well said again. I now completely understand your decision to abstain, and respect it. Even if my vote is to recall Sam, you have done a good job in portraying your opinions and honestly I can understand your concern. I do not believe we have any reason to continue debating however, since we both understand eachother whilst respectfully disagreeing. Thank you for bringing this opinion to the discussion, I applaud its merit and clarity.
Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.
Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.' I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P. Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo
Just for the sake of accuracy, I need to clarify that there are only two ways someone could be banned:
1. They break the rules of this forum in an extremely serious way, which would lead to Forum Administration imposing a ban on their forum account. Since Forum Administration does not concern itself with allegations of wrongdoing related to the regional government, it would not arbitrarily ban SJS Republic, no matter how loud people asked. 2. They are convicted of treason by the High Court. Since the punishment for treason is an immediate ban from both the region and the forum, the Delegate would eject and ban the nation and Forum Administration would ban the forum account. Even in those cases, there are parole procedures laid out in the Code of Laws. SJS Republic would receive full amnesty if he publicly admits his culpability. I just want to clarify that because some might be confusing the terms ban and security threat declaration. While citizens can have their citizenship removed by being declared as security threats by the Cabinet, they are not subject to a ban. The only effect would be the revocation of citizenship. Even in that case they would be entitled to submit an appeal to the Assembly and continue participating in other areas of the forum. I don't mean to advocate for either option. I just want to lay out the facts, in case anyone felt confused about what each term truly involved. You could make the case that the Assembly has supreme powers over the region and can simply vote to ban someone. I'll be upfront and say I didn't include that option above because I don't believe in the doctrine of Assembly supremacy. While I agree the Assembly has a lot of leeway in terms of what laws it can issue, I don't believe it can completely bypass issues of greater importance, such as residency and due process. I think in those cases the Assembly must follow what the Charter already states. 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 (03-06-2016, 11:48 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Nope. This could be perceived as a subversion of the rule of law (ie: the supremacy of the Charter), and rather unlikely to be passed as a law anyway.
http://tspforums.xyz/thread-3849.html
I decided to give the region a free swing at me the first time round. To let everyone have a vote without me being in their ear trying to sway them; to give them every possible chance to get rid of me, short of resigning myself. I will not, however, stand quietly in the face of the continued harassment and bullying I am facing here, with a second, incredibly questionable attempt at a recall. I don't see how it can be remotely legal to be able to continually recall someone until you get the desired result, and even if legal, it's completely immoral, and nothing short of harassment. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |