I do realize that you were commenting on a broader issue. I think not calling it a coup is basically Newspeak that will deepen the wounds of those us of who were targeted by the coup and those who remained loyal to the Coalition. It also diminishing the extraordinary defection Scylla made, which is actually what basically ended the coup.

There's been this conflation of the idea of reconciliation and the silencing or rewriting of the past, and that's what my comments above are pushing against. Reconciliation cannot happen when the wounds and desires of one side are pushed aside, while the other side is granted clemency and gets to avoid having their names go down in history for their actions.

That's a broader issue that still lingers on the surface of this community. So if we want to focus on Sam's CSS membership alone in this thread, that's fine. But saying we shouldn't call what happened a coup is very symbolic of the increasing sense of betrayal a number of players are feeling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(02-29-2016, 11:15 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Siberian was referring to an old WFE where I asked people to endorse Kris, Far and Glen. That doesn't mean I've removed Sam nor have done anything without legal standing.

And yet Sam's name does not appear at all on the list of officers for the region. Every single other member of the CSS is an officer, with both Kris and Glen's titles literally being "CSS Member".

The only missing CSS member is Sam. How can that be considered anything but a subtle nod to his unofficial removal?

(02-29-2016, 01:33 PM)Wolf Wrote:

(02-29-2016, 11:15 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Siberian was referring to an old WFE where I asked people to endorse Kris, Far and Glen. That doesn't mean I've removed Sam nor have done anything without legal standing.

And yet Sam's name does not appear at all on the list of officers for the region. Every single other member of the CSS is an officer, with both Kris and Glen's titles literally being "CSS Member".

The only missing CSS member is Sam. How can that be considered anything but a subtle nod to his unofficial removal?

Under Article 4 of the Regioanl Officers Act, powers can be changed with a majority of the Cabinet in support. Due to previous circumstances, I -- as the Cabinet -- felt it was prudent to remove those powers in-game -- which was and currently is the Cabinet's legal right to do so.

For the record, I'm not taking issue with your suggested implications. I'm taking issue with your argument that it was lawless to do so.

(02-29-2016, 01:42 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: For the record, I'm not taking issue with your suggested implications. I'm taking issue with your argument that it was lawless to do so.

I never said it was lawless, nor am I implying such.

I am however directly saying that the CSS has distanced Sam from its body and to deny this fact is silly.

It's not lawless, it's 100% legal, but isn't it a bit misleading to pretend this to not be the case?

I also have been consciously avoiding using the term "coup", as I don't think that the events that occurred during January/February match the common NS events that are called a coup. I believe "Constitutional Crisis" is a more accurate and less divisive description.

(02-29-2016, 01:17 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I do realize that you were commenting on a broader issue. I think not calling it a coup is basically Newspeak that will deepen the wounds of those us of who were targeted by the coup and those who remained loyal to the Coalition. It also diminishing the extraordinary defection Scylla made, which is actually what basically ended the coup.

There's been this conflation of the idea of reconciliation and the silencing or rewriting of the past, and that's what my comments above are pushing against. Reconciliation cannot happen when the wounds and desires of one side are pushed aside, while the other side is granted clemency and gets to avoid having their names go down in history for their actions.

That's a broader issue that still lingers on the surface of this community. So if we want to focus on Sam's CSS membership alone in this thread, that's fine. But saying we shouldn't call what happened a coup is very symbolic of the increasing sense of betrayal a number of players are feeling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel like this is skirting the issue. You say that it was a coup, but I don't think the facts align with that definition well. A coup involves individuals who are not the government making themselves the government illegally. Here, we had the legitimate government that was already in place illegally expanding its power. Those are two very different things.

I fully agree that the wounds of both sides should be considered, and the actions of both sides evaluated and remembered. My argument is that we should remember the actions for what they were. Trying to shoehorn the definition of a coup on to actions that don't meet the definition is not respecting the legitimate wounds that many feel from the actions of the previous cabinet, it is an emotive elevation of what they did. We can and should recognize the illegality of those actions for what they were, an overreach of executive power, rather than brand them with a charged but ultimately inaccurate term.

By this justification, Milograd didn't coup either.

Legally elected delegates going rogue, abolishing the government, deleting laws, and banjecting the security body meant to respond to those types of activities, is a coup. It has always been called a coup.

Continuing to refuse to call it one, or saying we shouldn't, is going to cause major issues. That's what's divisive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just to keep everyone on track, are we discussing Sam's CSS Membership Recall or the dictionary definition of a Coup?

(02-29-2016, 02:06 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: By this justification, Milograd didn't coup either.

Legally elected delegates going rogue, abolishing the government, deleting laws, and banjecting the security body meant to respond to those types of activities, is a coup. It has always been called a coup.

Continuing to refuse to call it one, or saying we shouldn't, is going to cause major issues. That's what's divisive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The important distinction that has to be made between the 2016 Constitutional Crisis and the Milograd coup, is that there were nothing at all alike in effects. The Cabinet, like Milograd, exceeded their legal powers causing the crisis, but unlike Milograd did not attempt to impose their position on the region by military force, conducted mass ejections, bring in foreign troops, etc.

There was a genuine legal dispute between the Cabinet and Admin Team, and when the Permanent Justice refused to recuse themselves - despite being a partisan within the dispute - the Cabinet chose to to dissolve the Charter and call a constitutional convention. This was certainly in excess of their legal authority, but calling it a coup is grossly inaccurate and a political use of language. When the region made clear it's disapproval, Hileville and the Cabinet then brought the situation to an end by handing over control of the region to myself to make way for fresh elections. These were not the actions of a couping force.

I'm going on record as saying that, having seen the farcical evidence put forth by Farengeto in support of his claim that Sam has denied culpability, there can be no question that he is still covered by the general amnesty. As such, a recall upon the basis of actions of his covered by said amnesty would seem to be in breach of the spirit of the agreement we all made to regroup on these forums and move forward as a region.