Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 03-01-2016, 07:22 PM

To prove that I'm serious about having a legitimate discussion on this -- I thought I'd take the step to open the thread myself.

I'll ask that you discuss the vote and hand, not how much we distrust everyone and everything in the region.

Thanks in advance for your help with this matter.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

~~Cormac~~ · 03-01-2016, 07:29 PM

First of all, I'm going to have to take issue with something Belschaft said in the other thread. I was one of the people involved in the forum move and coup, and I don't support leaving Sam on the CSS. Belschaft is not my spokesperson. So to argue that this is an "us vs. them" thing and nobody who was involved in the coup can see the perspective that Sam needs to be removed from the CSS is just fundamentally wrong, and Bel should not presume to speak for everyone who was involved in the coup.

We need to be very clear about what we're doing here: Some are voting to leave on the CSS someone who illegally abused his power as a CSS member to overthrow the Coalition and eject citizens without due process. No matter what arguments you employ for why you're doing this, it's what you're doing. You are leaving a security threat on an institution that is entrusted with regional security. That is irresponsible, to say the least.

I will also note, very broadly, that the amnesty passed by the Assembly is conditional upon admission of culpability and good behavior. Some who were involved in the forum move and the coup are, at the very least, toeing the line of not meeting those conditions, opening up the possibility that we will see criminal charges against those perceived to be violating the conditions of the amnesty. You are not being at all cooperative at this point and this cannot in any sense be considered good behavior. Shame on anyone who is content to leave a couper who has not made any admission of culpability on the CSS. You are putting the entire region at risk.

(This post was last modified: 03-01-2016, 07:31 PM by Cormac.)

ProfessorHenn · 03-01-2016, 09:06 PM

I'd just like to ask if a public place is the best place to hold this, as it is an issue of sensitive nature.

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

**Belschaft** · 03-01-2016, 09:11 PM

I don't think Sam is a genuine security threat Cormac, or I wouldn't be voting the way I am. I think it needs to be recognized that people may act in a certain manner during a high stress constitutional crisis, a manner that is not typical of how they would act normally. Very few people in NSGP have spotless pasts, and we shouldn't make a judgement in regards to questions of "security threat" or "trustworthiness" on one unrepresentative incident. The situation in January/Febuary that led up to the forum move and constitutional crisis was unprecedented in TSP history, and not the kind of thing that anyone here has experience dealing with. There is a saying about throwing stones in glass houses, and some of the loudest voices demanding that Sam be recalled should consider it.

At the end of the day, I don't think that a persuasive argument has been presented to support the recall; the predominant line of reasoning I've seen in that due to what happened in the constitutional crisis some other members of the CSS don't trust him and don't want want to work with him, and as such Sam should be removed to make them feel better. This argument, as I've said elsewhere, could be easily reversed and isn't sufficient grounds for the recall.

To put it simply, I do not think that Sam will compromise the security of TSP. What happened happened, and we all regret that it got that bad, but I don't see it occurring again any time soon.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 03-01-2016, 09:52 PM

He did compromise the security of TSP. He assisted a coup and illegally ejected citizens without due process.

The argument you're making is a persuasive argument not to file criminal charges, which we already collectively decided not to do with the general amnesty. Your argument is not a persuasive case for leaving him in an in-game security role. It is entirely reasonable not to trust someone who just participated in a coup with an in-game security role, and completely unreasonable to say those who don't trust him in that role aren't being true to the spirit of reconciliation we're pursuing. Nobody ever said or even suggested that reconciliation meant leaving someone who participated in the coup on the CSS.

One way or another, Sam is leaving the CSS soon. He's either leaving the CSS now through recall, or if minority obstructionism prevails -- and I remember when just a few days ago you were so against minority obstructionism when it was keeping you out of citizenship -- then he will be removed once the CSS is re-crafted during the Great Council and its members are once again subjected to an Assembly vote. You are obstructing and causing another contentious argument for absolutely nothing, only delaying the inevitable. Why? What possible constructive purpose does this serve? How does this move TSP forward in a positive direction? How does this benefit TSP?

(This post was last modified: 03-01-2016, 09:55 PM by Cormac.)

~~Wolf~~ · 03-02-2016, 03:47 AM

(03-01-2016, 09:52 PM)Cormac Wrote: One way or another, Sam is leaving the CSS soon. He's either leaving the CSS now through recall, or if minority obstructionism prevails -- and I remember when just a few days ago you were so against minority obstructionism when it was keeping you out of citizenship -- then he will be removed once the CSS is re-crafted during the Great Council and its members are once again subjected to an Assembly vote. You are obstructing and causing another contentious argument for absolutely nothing, only delaying the inevitable.

First, I doubt that the now ten people who are voting against this recall would consider their actions to be "obstructionism". What exactly are we obstructing other than the advancement of your own personal viewpoint, Cormac?

Second, if it doesn't matter in the end and Sam will be forced out of the CSS "one way or another", then why are you so vexed about it?

The Serres Republic · 03-02-2016, 06:08 AM

I have but one thing to say to all of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5OXON8vIaA

That is all.

Good day to all parties involved in this discussion Tounge

.

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

ProfessorHenn · 03-02-2016, 08:55 AM

Why are people voting for the recall? We vote fit because of the reasons stated by Cormac. What's the reasoning for the opposition?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

(This post was last modified: 03-02-2016, 09:01 AM by ProfessorHenn.)

~~Cormac~~ · 03-02-2016, 09:59 AM

(03-02-2016, 03:47 AM)Wolf Wrote: First, I doubt that the now ten people who are voting against this recall would consider their actions to be "obstructionism". What exactly are we obstructing other than the advancement of your own personal viewpoint, Cormac?

Second, if it doesn't matter in the end and Sam will be forced out of the CSS "one way or another", then why are you so vexed about it?

What you're obstructing is the removal of a known security threat from the institution that is supposed to ensure regional security. I'm "so vexed about it" because while it's inevitable that Sam will end up off the CSS (or whatever replaces it), every day that he remains on it is a day that he represents a risk to the security of the region. And you're just causing more arguing and more division for... what, exactly? I'm still waiting to hear why those who are voting against recall think this is what's best for TSP.

~~Wolf~~ · 03-02-2016, 11:19 AM

(03-02-2016, 09:59 AM)Cormac Wrote: What you're obstructing is the removal of a known security threat from the institution that is supposed to ensure regional security. I'm "so vexed about it" because while it's inevitable that Sam will end up off the CSS (or whatever replaces it), every day that he remains on it is a day that he represents a risk to the security of the region.

If he is such a horrible threat to our security, why are we not debating not simply his removal from the CSS but declaring him to be an official Security Threat?

That's ultimately what were getting at, isn't it? Some sort of declaration and retribution for Sam's role in The Crisis? I for one am not in favor of such heavy handed tactics. Nor am I at all comfortable with removing Sam from the CSS but leaving Kringalia, Sandaoguo, and Farengeto, the very object of the Opposition's rage and distrust. Nothing spells out "hidden reprisals" quite like that.

So no, I am not in favor of removing Sam from the CSS at this time and feel that we should keep the roster as it is until after the Great Convention, which will perhaps form a replacement institution which is more balanced.

Whine, cry, stomp your feet and call it obstructionism all you want, it doesn't make your reasoning any more valid than mine.