(01-05-2016, 10:58 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(01-04-2016, 08:31 PM)Punchwood Wrote: By the way Kris has left, not "decreased his activity." He was so arrogant he thought he could win every election and when he lost he radged quit. However I would like to see Kris return.

Considering the fact that you have no idea what might or might not be going on in my life, or what might have been the real reason for my decreased activity, I don't think you are in a position to make those kinds of accusations.

I support this recall. In the absence of an acknowledgement of culpability and demonstrated regret for his actions, Sam111 should not be allowed to remain on the Committee for State Security.

(02-29-2016, 05:34 PM)Belschaft Wrote: What we have said, and continue to say, is that there were genuine reasons that led them to change forums - reasons that the region at large recognized as legitimate - and that they should not be judged upon an overly emotional overreaction to Faregeto refusing to recuse himself, and the compromised court ruling that produced.

Regardless of whether Farengeto should have recused himself, his ruling was nonetheless completely valid. Any reasonable judge would have arrived at the same conclusion he did. Article 9 of the Charter specifically reserves the power to authorize a new regional forum to the Assembly. Hileville failed to obtain permission from the Assembly for the forum move, making it illegal. The fact that he waved his hands and said "well sure, the forum server and software may have changed, and I may have replaced the existing admins with my political allies, and all of the old content may be gone, but since the domain name didn't change, it's not technically a forum move" didn't change anything. That's a ridiculous argument and everybody knew it.

Frankly, though, I don't think Farengeto was obligated to recuse himself except with respect to the removal of his own border control powers, which is exactly what he did. Even if he should have recused himself, that's part of the reason why we have appeals. Hileville could have taken the legal route to contest Farengeto's ruling; instead, he chose to illegally dissolve the Coalition.

(02-29-2016, 05:34 PM)Belschaft Wrote: There was wrongdoing on both sides of this, and to focus merely on the cabinet is not only a dangerous mistake, but a complete repudiation of the agreement we all made to take part in an open and honest process of reform and reconciliation.

Whatever Glen-Rhodes or Kringalia did, it wasn't nearly as bad as the Hileville administration illegally dissolving our democratic system of government and ejecting and banning their political enemies without due process. There's a big difference between making a good faith attempt at reform and reconciliation and pretending that there's some sort of moral equivalency between supporters and opponents of the coup. You have absolutely no right to demand the latter.

Since it is apparent that decorum has been thrown out the window, and that this thread has devolved into something else. I kindly ask the Chairman of the Assembly to temporarily lock this thread to allow individuals to cool their heads before addressing the issue at hand, Sam111 removal from the CSS.

(02-29-2016, 03:25 PM)Belschaft Wrote: It was a constitutional crisis, that got messy when the Cabinet reacted poorly to Farengeto refusing to recall himself despite being a partisan in the matter in question. No one is denying that the Cabinet exceeded their legal authority in dissolving the Coalition, but prior to that they had been acting legally and had done nothing typical of a GCR coup.

"Before they coup'd, they didn't do anything typical of a coup." This idea that it wasn't really a coup, just a simple disagreement, is just ridiculous. A constitutional crisis is when our laws can't fix an immediate issue. We have had them before, without the Delegate resorting to what Hileville did. There was a legal means to do everything Hileville wanted to do, he just didn't want to go through those means. When the Delegate decides the law is inconvenient or that he can't get what he wants through it, and then just does away with the law, that is a coup. There's no mincing words. There's no "it's complicated." It's really not.

(02-29-2016, 03:25 PM)Belschaft Wrote: ... Once native WA members made their displeasure for the dissolving of the Coalition clear, Hileville and the Cabinet brought things to an end, peacefully and without demanding concessions or terms.

This is just false. The coup wasn't on its way to ending until Scylla defected and cleared the banlist. There was plenty of "native" "displeasure" with what Hileville did from the start; he didn't care. As long as he had the Cabinet, he could claim legitimacy, and it would be an uphill battle toppling his coup, especially with well-known NSers pouring into his forums to participate in writing a new constitution. Imki, Sam, and Sopo didn't even have a role in ending the coup: they couldn't do anything about it, once Hileville left. Imki and Sam spent all their influence banning the CSS. Sopo didn't have enough in the first place. What happened was that Scylla defected, Siberian was planning on defecting; and Imki, Sam, and Sopo were left with an unwinnable scenario. They didn't approach any of us with an olive branch. Going to TNP to express doubts doesn't mean much. Actually doing the right thing does, and that's why Scylla and Siberian have been celebrated. Coming back here afterwards, expressing that the coup was wrong, and showing a willingness to work within our laws, is also worthy of celebration.

(02-29-2016, 03:25 PM)Belschaft Wrote: You are approaching this with a sense of triumphalism and entitlement entirely inappropriate, and greatly to my dislike. This was not a situation where you won a GCR war, and get to impose terms and demand grovelling apologies at your feet.

Actually, yes, this is a situation where we get to impose terms. We, in fact, already have. Our terms are: admit wrongdoing and get amnesty. Now you are moving the goalposts and demanding of the people who were victims of the coup to stop calling it a coup, to erase this from our history and pretend that nothing wrong happened... (Except, of course, we must agree that Kris and I are to blame for the great chunk of it, that must be something that we never forget.)

The amnesty clause was never a reset button, as if we would revert to the post-coup status quo in terms of trust and relationships. We emphatically did not grant unconditional amnesty precisely because a level of contrition is absolutely necessary to fix what went wrong. Some have showed that contrition-- quite a few have not. Conditional amnesty was granted because it was more important for us to begin the process of rebuilding, than to get mired in trials for people who wouldn't even show up anyways. But it was not a declaration that there would be no consequences for them at all. There have been consequences for everybody else.

You may believe that being chosen to hand the delegate seat over to Tsunamy somehow prevented a "civil war" and would lead to a "forgive and forget" reality. But that was never the case, and it was never going to happen. Reconciliation is not a one-way street. Those of us who defended the Coalition against the coup have been asked to be merciful. We have been. We've been asked to acknowledge the faults in our system, and to work in a process to fix that. We have done so. All I ask is for history to be written accurately, for us to call a coup a coup, and do reasonable things to prevent further dysfunction. That includes being honest about what happened, and not trying to sugar coat it for posterity.

Sam cannot remain in the CSS; there's no trust there. It is beyond obvious that he must resign or be recalled, no matter how you personally feel about him or his motives. The writing has been on the wall since the Coalition was restored. Amnesty or not, the CSS can't function unless everybody there trusts each other. Being removed from the CSS is not a punishment: it's an acknowledgement of reality.

Are we actually arguing over whether or not dissolving the Coalition without legal authority to do so and ejecting citizens without due process was a coup? It was a coup. I can't believe we're even having this argument. Talk about denying culpability.

Furthermore, the idea that the general amnesty applies to a sensitive security office that was abused in order to carry out the coup and eject citizens without due process is just absurd. Amnesty means he won't be charged with a crime. Full stop.

This is a no-brainer that shouldn't have ended up anywhere near this contentious. I legitimately don't know why every issue has to become this controversial.

Given that this thread has largely derailed at this point, I seek the consensus of Assembly members to put the proposed recall motion to vote.

Agreed. I continue my third.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(02-29-2016, 10:13 PM)Awe Wrote: Given that this thread has largely derailed at this point, I seek the consensus of Assembly members to put the proposed recall motion to vote.

Yes, please let's do that.

(02-29-2016, 09:27 PM)Cormac Wrote: Are we actually arguing over whether or not dissolving the Coalition without legal authority to do so and ejecting citizens without due process was a coup? It was a coup. I can't believe we're even having this argument. Talk about denying culpability.

Furthermore, the idea that the general amnesty applies to a sensitive security office that was abused in order to carry out the coup and eject citizens without due process is just absurd. Amnesty means he won't be charged with a crime. Full stop.

This is a no-brainer that shouldn't have ended up anywhere near this contentious. I legitimately don't know why every issue has to become this controversial.

Maybe I got a little pissy, but when I saw people talking about treason charges - in direct contravention of the general amnesty - my temper snapped.

Up for vote once again