I'll get the chat issue out of the way by clarifying that the CSS only started conducting formal business outside Lubyanka with the switch from IRC. Previous to that, save specific circumstances, like the Cabinet Coup, we always conducted our formal business here. Your assertion that we have always worked through real time chat is quite simply a lie.

I also take issue with your presumption of why I don't use the regional chat. While my reasons were as you said, at one point, circumstances change, and my reasons have changed as well. For what it's worth, part of my reason for not using it is to avoid having this same kind of argument in real time. It diminishes my enjoyment of the game, and it's something I neither need nor want.

I would argue that you are the one ignoring the substance of the law. It clearly says we must conduct an investigation after declaring someone a security risk. It's obvious that we've investigated before, but the additional requirement is there precisely to prevent this sort of situation: us making up our minds without conducting a more thorough inquiry into what happened and what the actual implications are. Claiming that we already investigated is relying on a technicality, while ignoring what the law truly means with its requirement.

Honestly, if you don't understand why I do or don't do something, and it frustrates you, just message me and ask. I always answer my messages, and it saves us much drama.

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

Reply

I would argue that you are the one ignoring the substance of the law. It clearly says we must conduct an investigation after declaring someone a security risk. It's obvious that we've investigated before, but the additional requirement is there precisely to prevent this sort of situation: us making up our minds without conducting a more thorough inquiry into what happened and what the actual implications are. Claiming that we already investigated is relying on a technicality, while ignoring what the law truly means with its requirement.

Kris — we essentially retro-fitted the law to fit what we did. Repeating the same steps seems arduous and nonsensical. I'm not sure what else we're going to find.

The problem isn't that people have their minds made it, it's that there just is a limited amount of source material to find. I can only say this so many ways — what else do you want us to investigate?

I'm personally not going to set out specific issues, but it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that this council is irreparably broken. Bel is going to ask the Assembly to brush off this investigation in a week and, honestly, who could blame him?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

OK, here's the deal. In most cases, I'm very obsessive when it comes to following the letter of the law. To me it's not a matter of what's more convenient, regardless of what the law says, but rather of inconveniences being irrelevant, precisely because the law says how things should be done.

So when I argue that we should do an investigation, I genuinely do believe we should do one, not because I like being a pain, but because, objectively speaking, we haven't done the investigation that the law requires after Belschaft was declared a security risk.

As to what i think we should do, I did elaborate on that:

But the law lays out a process, and saying Belschaft already defended himself in the Assembly is a gross misrepresentation of that process, when we both know the idea is to formally interview him and allow him a chance to address specific charges, and respond to specific pieces of evidence. We also have allegations of depositions by former SPSF leaders. Where are those? What do they contain? What would they say if we interviewed them, rather than Belschaft? There is plenty to be done, which we can do as a team, and which would let us reach a more definitive conclusion.

To me it's not only about what we do, but also how we do it. It's not enough that we think Belschaft has done questionable things and should face consequences. We have to follow the proper process and adequately explain to the region how we arrived at that conclusion, because we are ultimately accountable to the region. If we don't show that we did our due dilligence and took every chance to make the right call, then we set the wrong precedent, for cutting corners because we think it's convenient.

I mean, I'm not saying that we should throw away our earlier investigation. I'm saying interesting things arose during its course, and the aftermath, and those are things that we should investigate, because we have to say that we did a thorough job. We owe it to Belschaft, to the region, and to ourselves as a Committee. And I'm happy to pull my weight to accomplish that; I've always been, but for that we first need to agree to investigate. It's moot otherwise.

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

(This post was last modified: 04-07-2017, 08:35 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

For the record, this is Bel's response:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I think we have two Nays and at least two Ayes. Drugged Monkeys and SJS Republic would still have to vote.

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

Reply

Aiight — here goes.

Unless someone can lay out EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED, I think we're done here. I've asked several times now — what more do we wanted considering my belief s that we've gotten all we're going to get — and the answer remains that two of us want an investigation. 

Unfortunately, "investigations" can take many forms. And, unless we get more details in how you see the "proper" investigation we owe the region playing out, I'm afraid I can't help put that together.

Finally, again, this isn't. a. punishment. This is making sure Bel doesn't undermine the government. That's different than being punished for bad behavior.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Aiight — here goes.

Unless someone can lay out EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED, I think we're done here. I've asked several times now — what more do we wanted considering my belief s that we've gotten all we're going to get — and the answer remains that two of us want an investigation. 

Unfortunately, "investigations" can take many forms. And, unless we get more details in how you see the "proper" investigation we owe the region playing out, I'm afraid I can't help put that together.

Finally, again, this isn't. a. punishment. This is making sure Bel doesn't undermine the government. That's different than being punished for bad behavior.

Firstly, the SPSF. What were they doing. What was Bel doing under their orders. Did the SPSF know anything Bel was doing. What angle is Roavin trying to pull, apparently having ordered this then throwing Bel to us.

Even asking NK if there's anything he will admit about Bel and his conversations.

We're not asking for some big investigative committee with grand public testimonies. We need to get out there and find more detail and context on the evidence we have.

You may not consider this a punishment, but your terms certainly disagree. We're talking about banning him from holding WA in the region. It's practically a step below outright banning him, especially since it limits his ability to vote in certain elections. And for our concerns about the SPSF it just frees up Bel to use his WA for them.

The CRS doesn't need to bow to public opinion, but the goal here is to not have people try to overthrow us instead. If half of us aren't even convinced we've done this right, then how do you think the rest of the region will react?

Reply

Aiight — here goes.

Unless someone can lay out EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED, I think we're done here. I've asked several times now — what more do we wanted considering my belief s that we've gotten all we're going to get — and the answer remains that two of us want an investigation. 

Unfortunately, "investigations" can take many forms. And, unless we get more details in how you see the "proper" investigation we owe the region playing out, I'm afraid I can't help put that together.

Finally, again, this isn't. a. punishment. This is making sure Bel doesn't undermine the government. That's different than being punished for bad behavior.

Firstly, the SPSF. What were they doing. What was Bel doing under their orders. Did the SPSF know anything Bel was doing. What angle is Roavin trying to pull, apparently having ordered this then throwing Bel to us.

Even asking NK if there's anything he will admit about Bel and his conversations.

We're not asking for some big investigative committee with grand public testimonies. We need to get out there and find more detail and context on the evidence we have.

You may not consider this a punishment, but your terms certainly disagree. We're talking about banning him from holding WA in the region. It's practically a step below outright banning him, especially since it limits his ability to vote in certain elections. And for our concerns about the SPSF it just frees up Bel to use his WA for them.

The CRS doesn't need to bow to public opinion, but the goal here is to not have people try to overthrow us instead. If half of us aren't even convinced we've done this right, then how do you think the rest of the region will react?

No, two of you are being pedantic to be fucking pedantic. You've been asked several times what you want an investigation to look like and this is the first concrete answer that's been given.

The rest of us aren't mind readers so when we ask about how to proceed with an investigation — in the future — I'd appreciate an answer rather than this runaround with just sucked a week out of the timeline.

Can we get a volunteer to talk to NK?

Do we want to bring Vietnam in or how do we propose we examine what the SPSF is doing?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I'm not sure why you think I'd subject myself to the kind of bridge burning and despising that I'm experiencing in my relationship with you and Glen, if I didn't strongly and fervently believe in the points I'm arguing. It's not fun, you know?

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

Reply

What the SPSF is doing is a completely separate matter. Whether or not Resentine, Roavin, Imki, or Vietnam authorized intelligence activities they weren't allowed to authorize isn't and shouldn't be part of an investigation into Belschaft's contact with NK. That's a question of policy, accountability, and intra-government communication, and not a question of a threat to regional security.

Second, it's not "half of us." It's 2 out of 6, thus far. And the about face that's happening here is pretty annoying, given that it doesn't seem to be predicated on anything. Farengeto, back in February, you were pushing a highly dubious reading of legislator application requirements to remove Belschaft. And this was before we had even heard of any inappropriate intelligence agency! So I get the sense that the goal posts have shifted, there.

Third, no, Roavin did not authorize an mission to "develop" NK. We've already discussed this, and the logs of that conversation were shared in the Discord channel. Roavin flat-out said Belschaft never told him anything about it, was never authorized to do anything other than figure out if Yuno was a member of The Invaders, and that even if Belschaft was given 'implicit' authority to develop NK, the fact that he never reported anything raises very serious questions.

Log

Additionally, I also talked to Vietnam, and he too said that Belschaft never reported anything and that the first he had heard of the NK conversation was when we heard about it.

Log

We also have Vietnam's "deposition": https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1...stion.docx

Lastly, why on earth would we ask NK anything about this? No, he's not going to "admit" anything. No, he's not going to confirm any Empire or Osiris agenda. No, he's not going to be complicit in the burning of a possible ally in Belschaft. And, no, we aren't going to get anything else that's useful out of him. What's likely to happen? He will spin and he will try to confuse whoever talks to him. He will be deceptive, and he will bank on his words being publicized or leaked -- he leaked his convo with Bel and Adytus!! -- in the hopes that his spin and deception will endear TSP to Osiris and help warm TSP to Empire members. This isn't our first rodeo with Empire, guys.

Reply