Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 05-09-2016, 02:35 PM

I, like a bunch of other people, have slipped over the endorsement cap; it's pretty much inevitable considering the low level of the endorsement cap and the record number of nations in TSP right now. As such I figured I should probably apply for the CSS, to come back into compliance with the law.

I've been a member of TSP since 2011, served as Minister of Security three times, was a founding member of the CSS in 2013, was elected Delegate twice and most recently held the Delegacy in a transitional capacity after persuading Hileville to stand down and give me control of his nation. In that capacity I immediately brought to an end the unrest in the region, preventing a civil war from developing, and maintained stability and security until special elections could be held. Considering all that, as well as the huge experience I have from my years in NS, I think I'd be able to contribute greatly to the CSS once more. Further, I think my actions whilst controlling Hileville's nation prove beyond any question that I can be trusted to maintain the security of TSP.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 05-09-2016, 03:07 PM

I want to preface this by restating that I don't have any political agendas. I simply want to be exhaustive, and help the Assembly get a full picture. Just as an applicant might be very qualified, they probably have some weak points, and it does them and us well to examine those points and see what comes out of it. Maybe we decide that the weak points are expected and can be overcome, and that is good, but at least we gave them due consideration. In that sense, I'm not out to conduct a witch hunt, I'm simply interested in helping conduct a proper cross examination.

In that sense, I will lay out a series of past situations, some that worry me and others that I think speak well about your character, and I hope you can address each and alleviate the concerns that some might have, about your suitability for the Committee. I know some of these situations, some will find annoying and assume they are attempts to revive old arguments, but please bear with me. I may have my own opinions on them, but this is just a chance for Belschaft to provide his own view, and it's entirely possible I might agree with his explanations. As I said, the goal here is to give him a chance to display his strong and weak points, and make the case for why he should be in the Committee, or otherwise.

You were one of the leaders of the Cabinet and the Southern Allied Command during the Milograd Coup, and as I understand it, the main proponent of the attrition strategy that led to the victory against the South Pacific Socialist Republic, against the judgment of others in both the Cabinet and the Command. You displayed a keen eye for the best way to fight the coup.
While Delegate, you reacted impulsively to the selection of Milograd as Vice Chairman of the People's Republic of Lazarus, in late 2013, leading to the dissolution of our treaty. As the then-Minister of Foreign Affairs, I had to quickly negotiate a Non-Aggression Pact to salvage some of that relationship. You later admitted that your actions in this particular situation were inadequate.
You were recalled from the Committee for State Security in 2014, after evidence surfaced that you had at the very least discussed the possibility of coordinating people to move to this region and vote certain people, namely Sandaoguo and Unibot, out of office. It was also hinted that you were willing to use your position as Court Justice, from which you were also recalled, to repeal the Treaty with the Rejected Realms.
You publicly supported the illegal forum move and subsequent coup, and failed to contact the whole Committee for State Security to see if we could coordinate our strategies. While you did help restore the Coalition, one has to wonder why you failed to reach out to us, when private communication was entirely possible, and even desirable, given the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that a basic part of membership in the Committee is collaboration.
You still refuse to acknowledge that this was a coup. While the illegal forum move could certainly be called a constitutional crisis, the following events were a textbook example of a coup, where someone dissolved the previous order and banished their political opponents. As we both know, the fundamental task for those in the Committee is to fight attempts to dissolve the Coalition, and to be inequivocal when such attempts take place.
You have an impressive knowledge of South Pacifican history, and are well versed in both ancient happenings and recent events, having even experienced many of those first-hand.
You have experience fighting, in one way or another, three coups, out of the (at most) six in our regional history. That is more than anyone currently present in the region, with the possible exception of Tsunamy, and even then your involvement was much more detailed.

I hope you can comment a bit on each of this, so we can all have a clearer picture of what your strengths and weaknesses are.

If I'm honest, I don't have a set opinion on how I'll vote on this. I really do think you have strong pros and cons, so your answers here will be for me as much as they are for the Assembly.

As a sidenote, you really should join the Historical Society project at MoRA. I really meant it about your historical knowledge.

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

***sandaoguo*** · 05-09-2016, 03:58 PM

This isn't something the Assembly can take up, first of all, during the recess for the Great Council. It's not an "extraordinary matter" by any reasonable interpretation of the phrase.

The Great Council will almost surely dissolve the CSS and replace it with a body that has different membership requirements. Anybody who wants to apply should do so once the Great Council ends.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 05-09-2016, 05:26 PM

Thanks for the questions/comments Kris. I'll try and address them all one by one;

Quote:1. You were one of the leaders of the Cabinet and the Southern Allied Command during the Milograd Coup, and as I understand it, the main proponent of the attrition strategy that led to the victory against the South Pacific Socialist Republic, against the judgment of others in both the Cabinet and the Command. You displayed a keen eye for the best way to fight the coup.

The common opinion back in 2013, and today, is that you can't fight a coup successfully via purely military means, and that's true in most cases; we've seen in both Lazarus and Osiris how military means are ineffective against an organised junta with sufficient numbers of high endorsement/high influence nations to remove any opposition from the region. Milogard's coup of TSP wasn't a typical coup though; he lacked support from other high endorsement/high influence nations, and was taking advice and support from Mall and Durk, both of whom are more interested in causing chaos than holding a region. This meant that an attritional military campaign was viable, as they only had one reserve of influence to spend and were also wasting in ejecting nations that weren't militarily significant. That's not to say that other options weren't considered, and more covert tactics were tried as well, but they proved ineffective compared to direct military action. The reality is that in a coup you're going to try everything and anything that might have a chance of success, and that conventional wisdom isn't always right.

Quote:2. While Delegate, you reacted impulsively to the selection of Milograd as Vice Chairman of the People's Republic of Lazarus, in late 2013, leading to the dissolution of our treaty. As the then-Minister of Foreign Affairs, I had to quickly negotiate a Non-Aggression Pact to salvage some of that relationship. You later admitted that your actions in this particular situation were inadequate.

I reacted badly to Lazarus placing Milograd in control of their region, and am entirely aware that by cancelling the in game embassy I was acting impulsively. But at the same time this was less than three months since Milograd had couped TSP, and one of our allies was handing control of their region to a convicted traitor. Not only that, but his first action was to import the theme of his coup government to Lazarus - going so far as to use the same graphics and forum design - in what could only be called an intentional insult to TSP. Further, I had received guaranties from both Feux and Harmonia that Milograd would not be placed in that position, guarantees that had then be broken. Even despite all this, I did nothing more than cancel the in game embassy, and it was Milograd who annulled the alliance unilaterally. I then agreed with, and voted for, the NAP that you negotiated.

Could the incident have been handled better? Yes. Would I say it was mainly my fault? No. I blame Lazarus, an ally who made someone who had just couped our region their Delegate, adopted the theme of his coup regime, and in the process broke multiple guarantees they had given me to not do exactly that.

Quote:3. You were recalled from the Committee for State Security in 2014, after evidence surfaced that you had at the very least discussed the possibility of coordinating people to move to this region and vote certain people, namely Sandaoguo and Unibot, out of office. It was also hinted that you were willing to use your position as Court Justice, from which you were also recalled, to repeal the Treaty with the Rejected Realms.

I voted for my own recall on that occasion, having concluded that I had acted inappropriately and that it was best for the region. Discussions such as those I engaged in happen every day in NS, and whilst I by no means use that as an excuse, I do think that things have to be kept in perspective. There's been a dangerous conflation of political threat and security threat in TSP, and the reality is that discussing a campaign to ensure that someone is not elected to office is by no means the same thing as plotting to overthrow the Coalition. The attacks on me during that time period where hyperbolic in the extreme, and I spent months being called everything from a traitor to a would be couper, and yet the entire time not one person would come forward to charge me with a crime.

Quote:4. You publicly supported the illegal forum move and subsequent coup, and failed to contact the whole Committee for State Security to see if we could coordinate our strategies. While you did help restore the Coalition, one has to wonder why you failed to reach out to us, when private communication was entirely possible, and even desirable, given the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that a basic part of membership in the Committee is collaboration.

I was in communication with Tsunamy, the senior CSS member and operational point, throughout the period of time, and did everything in my capacity to moderate Hileville's actions and talk him down; something I was successful in. I, like many others, disagree with the idea that the forum move was illegal and supported it; the dissolution of the coalition was entirely illegal, and something I counselled against. However, my ability to influence events was dependant on my ability to influence Hileville, and that could only be maintained by supporting his actions publicly. Had I broken with him at that point I would not have been in position to take over his nation and restore the Coalition. I stand by my actions, and I believe that they are vindicated by events.

Quote:5. You still refuse to acknowledge that this was a coup. While the illegal forum move could certainly be called a constitutional crisis, the following events were a textbook example of a coup, where someone dissolved the previous order and banished their political opponents. As we both know, the fundamental task for those in the Committee is to fight attempts to dissolve the Coalition, and to be inequivocal when such attempts take place.

I think defining what went on is difficult, due to the unusual circumstances. I am unwilling to use the word coup as I do not believe that the events in question match those of what the word is commonly used to describe in NS, and do not wish to conflate the two. I am not alone in this. Sometimes circumstances are such that an easy, simplistic term cannot be readily attached to events, and I think this is one of them. I have unequivocal and continuously said that the dissolution of the coalition was illegal.

Further, I disagree that the fundamental task of the CSS is to fight attempts to dissolve the Coalition; I would say it is to defend TSP's liberal-democratic system. Should the Coalition turn it's back on that I believe it would be appropriate for the CSS to take action.

Quote:6. You have an impressive knowledge of South Pacifican history, and are well versed in both ancient happenings and recent events, having even experienced many of those first-hand.

Thanks for the compliment Smile

Quote:7. You have experience fighting, in one way or another, three coups, out of the (at most) six in our regional history. That is more than anyone currently present in the region, with the possible exception of Tsunamy, and even then your involvement was much more detailed.

I also have extensive experience in security and military affairs outside TSP, all of which I believe contributes to making me highly qualified to serve on the CSS.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 05-09-2016, 05:26 PM

(05-09-2016, 03:58 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: This isn't something the Assembly can take up, first of all, during the recess for the Great Council. It's not an "extraordinary matter" by any reasonable interpretation of the phrase.

The Great Council will almost surely dissolve the CSS and replace it with a body that has different membership requirements. Anybody who wants to apply should do so once the Great Council ends.

I am in excess of the endorsement cap; if I am to continue to gain endorsements and influence, which I wish to, then I must apply to join the CSS.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 05-09-2016, 05:49 PM

You're completely misrepresenting why you were recalled from the CSS in 2014. It was not over "discussing a campaign to ensure someone (was) not elected to office." You conspired to import allies from other regions for the express purpose of electing you and your friends to the Cabinet, so you could use the Cabinet's security threat declaration power to purge myself and Unibot from the region. That isn't something people discuss in NS every day.

Your role in Hileville's coup was not that innocent either. You publicly cheered it on. It was not the case that you were somehow playing double agent and trying to talk Hileville down. You literally said the "Transitional Government" was overdue and that "there's no one I'd trust more than Hileville to oversee this process." This was your exact response to the coup and the purge of myself, Kris, and Farengeto, not merely the forum move. http://thesouthpacific.org/topic/8319845/1/

Only when Kris and I were cleared from the ban list and the Cabinet started crumbling, did you do an about-face on the coup. How exactly were you preventing Hileville from purging me, Kris, and Farengeto, by publicly supporting it? If your goal was to get him to *not* coup, you failed, and surely by then there was no reason to continue acting as a double agent against him. You supported the coup. We let you stay anyways. That's not going to change anytime soon. So why continue to try to rewrite history?

I don't know why you felt the need to do this. You knew it would be controversial, and you knew it would further split the region. I genuinely don't get it!

As for the endorsement cap, you can always simply decrease your endorsements. You can resign from the WA and then sign up again once your endorsements are cleared, with minimal impact on your influence score. Or the CSS can increase the cap. Or literally nothing can be done, because it's not a matter of law that you must either join the CSS or be ejected if you breach the endo cap. (I have more endorsements, and way more influence, than you, and I'm not applying!) This application isn't an extraordinary matter that the Assembly has to address.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***Kris Kringle*** · 05-09-2016, 05:55 PM

(05-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I was in communication with Tsunamy, the senior CSS member and operational point, throughout the period of time

Either that is a lie or Tsunamy kept it to himself, instead of discussing it with the rest of the Committee. Both are concerning.

(05-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I think defining what went on is difficult, due to the unusual circumstances. I am unwilling to use the word coup as I do not believe that the events in question match those of what the word is commonly used to describe in NS, and do not wish to conflate the two. I am not alone in this. Sometimes circumstances are such that an easy, simplistic term cannot be readily attached to events, and I think this is one of them. I have unequivocal and continuously said that the dissolution of the coalition was illegal.

I really wish we could come to terms with the fact that this was a coup, while understanding that this acknowledgement does not mean ignoring the structural issues and subsequent debates that will result in improvements to our political system. What the Cabinet did was illegally seize power and dissolve the government, which is most certainly a coup. At some point we have to accept that, and still agree that something good came out of it. There is nothing wrong with that.

(05-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I disagree that the fundamental task of the CSS is to fight attempts to dissolve the Coalition; I would say it is to defend TSP's liberal-democratic system. Should the Coalition turn it's back on that I believe it would be appropriate for the CSS to take action.

If changes to The Coalition are made legally, with the approval of the people, then there is nothing for us to do. If changes are made outside the legal system, then that is a problem that needs addressing. I would argue our mandate is to uphold the system as legally established. What that system is (though hopefully it will always be democratic) should be left to the people (of which we are still part).

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

**Belschaft** · 05-09-2016, 05:57 PM

Facts speak a lot louder than words Glen, and the facts are that three months ago I was able to get Hile to hand over his nation to me, and then immediately proceeded to restore order and stability, sought instructions from the Assembly, and remained Delegate in transitional role until special elections could be held.

You can keep shouting "Belschaft is a security threat and couper" as much as you like, but you're only going to make yourself look like an idiot.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 05-09-2016, 06:12 PM

(05-09-2016, 05:55 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
(05-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I was in communication with Tsunamy, the senior CSS member and operational point, throughout the period of time

Either that is a lie or Tsunamy kept it to himself, instead of discussing it with the rest of the Committee. Both are concerning.

Tsu has confirmed this elsewhere, on multiple occasions.

(05-09-2016, 05:55 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
(05-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I think defining what went on is difficult, due to the unusual circumstances. I am unwilling to use the word coup as I do not believe that the events in question match those of what the word is commonly used to describe in NS, and do not wish to conflate the two. I am not alone in this. Sometimes circumstances are such that an easy, simplistic term cannot be readily attached to events, and I think this is one of them. I have unequivocal and continuously said that the dissolution of the coalition was illegal.

I really wish we could come to terms with the fact that this was a coup, while understanding that this acknowledgement does not mean ignoring the structural issues and subsequent debates that will result in improvements to our political system. What the Cabinet did was illegally seize power and dissolve the government, which is most certainly a coup. At some point we have to accept that, and still agree that something good came out of it. There is nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that the word coup in-of-itself carries political meaning and implications, which I don't think are appropriate here. There was no attempt to hold power or the region by force nor any effort to suppress or otherwise subvert democracy. This was a dispute between two sections of the government, both of whom committed a number of actions that were of questionable legality; let us not forget the CSS's declaration that it's chosen members were now Delegate/Vice-Delegate, contrary to the legal process. Civil-War is far more appropriate a term than coup, except things never got that far because the situation was resolved.

(05-09-2016, 05:55 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
(05-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I disagree that the fundamental task of the CSS is to fight attempts to dissolve the Coalition; I would say it is to defend TSP's liberal-democratic system. Should the Coalition turn it's back on that I believe it would be appropriate for the CSS to take action.

If changes to The Coalition are made legally, with the approval of the people, then there is nothing for us to do. If changes are made outside the legal system, then that is a problem that needs addressing. I would argue our mandate is to uphold the system as legally established. What that system is (though hopefully it will always be democratic) should be left to the people (of which we are still part).

The changes to Lazarus that converted it from a democracy to a dictatorship were legal. Legality is not, in of itself, sufficient for something to be right.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 05-09-2016, 06:22 PM by Belschaft.)

***sandaoguo*** · 05-10-2016, 12:00 AM

If we want to talk facts, the fact is that it was never necessary for you take over Hileville's nation. He could have resigned from the WA, or a member of the resistance could have overtaken him in endorsements, when he had given up. To quite a few people, you taking control of his nation seemed more of an opportunity to *appear* the good guy than to actually be it.

The biggest issue with your narrative is that, if it is true, then there was no reason for you to have supported Hileville once he actually couped and engaged in purges. You didn't moderate him-- he banjected the 3 people he needed to in order to consolidate power. That's the thing you supposedly needed to play both sides in order to prevent. So once it happened, why continue? And why is it believable in the first place that you wanted to prevent a purge, when you had a history of supporting banning me from TSP and felt Kris and I were responsible for your downfall and security threat status? It's not really credible that you wanted to protected us from a coup.

The simplest answer is that you were playing your own side. If Hileville succeeded, you'd have your spot as admin on his new forums, probably head the CSS, build yourself a comfortable litany of leadership positions. Once the tide had turned, though, it was prudent to end up on our side, or at least stake some claim as a benevolent double agent secretly working for us all along. Getting Hileville to hand you the nation was the perfect thing to earn goodwill points with the community. By all rights, you've got your way back into TSP. That's the narrative I think is more likely and fits more in your history, absent contrary evidence.

The point is that you can't be trusted to oppose all coups. You will support a coup if it benefits you or harms your opponents. Your trustworthiness and honesty is only further called into question by the fact that you duped and deceived the entire region into electing you to the Local Council, by pretending to be a female player named Livia, a duplicity and fraud you carried on well into the coup.

The timing of your application, in all reality, has nothing to do with your endorsement level. You can easily remedy that yourself. The requirements in the current draft of the new Charter are too high for you to meet in the short to medium term, given your very low influence level. Those requirements don't exist under the current laws. So if you were made a member now, you'd be able to argue that you should remain a member of the new organization even though you don't meet its new requirements.

Your low influence level makes a very poor case for your candidacy, just objectively speaking. A rogue delegate or RO could eject you and still have plenty influence to spare. It will take you a long time to increase your influence five- to seven-fold, to have enough that it would be too costly to purge you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk