I echo DM. I haven't seen anyone dispute the facts Sam partook, actively via ejecting of members, in a coup, which means they are comfortable with the CSS containing who was, and possibly is, a threat to both it and the Coalition's integrity and security.

Fantastic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that we have fallen far off the topic. The topic at hand was to recall Sam111 from the CSS, not to debate regarding a coup or how someone words things. Can we get back to the main topic, or is that so hard to ask? I do not mean to sound rude in the least by saying this. What I mean is that we need to debate on the issue at hand, and leave all issues that don't regard this for another time or in personal messages.

I supported the recall, up until I was accused of supporting and advancing a foreign agenda. Fought one coup, went absolutely mental at the people involved in Toaster and done all I could to help settle the most recent mess before Tsunamy could be ejected and I am belittled and insulted consistently in nearly every corner. Oh well.

(03-01-2016, 01:41 PM)Lord Ravenclaw Wrote: I supported the recall, up until I was accused of supporting and advancing a foreign agenda.

Huh? When and where did this occur and by whom?

Here's the thing; people are arguing that we can't trust Sam because of his involvement in the constitutional crisis as part of the Cabinet. That's true for those people who were partisans of the faction opposed to the cabinet, and for some of the people who weren't part of either faction. For those of us who were supporting the cabinet, and for some of the people who weren't part of either faction, the opposite is true. Sam's actions during the forum move and constitutional crisis don't make me distrust him, because I was on the same side as him.

We cannot establish a litmus test for trustworthiness of "not in the Cabinet's faction", because that would effectively exclude a whole bunch of people who are meant to be part of this reconciliation process.

There are people here in TSP who I don't trust in their current positions, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and not making an issue of it. Because that's what we all agreed to do when we stepped back from the bring of civil war.

This is not a situation where people in the Cabinet's faction were traitors to TSP, and are being tolerated and accepted here by the goodwill of the region. This is a situation where there was a serious and major dispute between the elected government and the technical administration, that almost caused a civil war. The civil war however didn't happen because we all agreed to take a step back from the brink. It was right that there were fresh elections, and it was right that a new cabinet took office. But now that has happened we need to move forward, and we do not do that by declaring those of one faction, and one faction only, to be no longer trusted.

If it's going to be the case that members of the faction I was in are going to be declared untrustworthy and asked to step back from any positions in the region for now, then it is only right that members of the other faction have to do the same. Because the way that Glen, Kris and Far feel about people like Sam, Imki and Sopo is the same way that I feel about Glen, Kris and Far.

(03-01-2016, 02:17 PM)Wolf Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 01:41 PM)Lord Ravenclaw Wrote: I supported the recall, up until I was accused of supporting and advancing a foreign agenda.

Huh? When and where did this occur and by whom?

Discord, earlier. The logs of it, are available to anyone with access to lampshade-bar on the South Pacific discord server. My side of the argument was deleted as my answers detailed personal, RL circumstances.

In short, I was accused of using my citizenship here solely to benefit The North Pacific. Tsunamy and Imki interceded to speak in my defence but this regular display of Us verses Them mentality I'm seeing is almost as bad as Osiris. Getting it from Drugged Monkeys was unexpected, and has strongly made me consider my past positions on tSP.

Through this, I have done nothing but attempt to add a side to the story that no one else could speak of in the belief that the Assembly would benefit from knowing it. I apologise for being wrong in this matter, and will definitely ensure you do not hear of any future events of its type from me. Treaty or otherwise.

The last thing I will say on this is that the question of terminology is not fully separable from the question of recall. Many members are intimately familiar with the pertinent events, and know what they think of it. However, those who are less familiar are clearly far more likely to vote to recall someone labeled a couper than one accused of executive overreach (for the record, I don't think either term is fully accurate here).

Sam should not be trusted with the most precious Coalition secrets when he fought to overthrow it. It is not said he should be thrown out, but not trusted as much as before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glen and Kris should not be trusted with the most precious Coalition secrets when they have consistently abused their positions as admins. It is not said they should be thrown out, but not trusted as much as before.

....

See, it can be done in reverse. If you want to start recalling anyone from our faction because you don't trust them, why the hell should we be expected to not do the same when it comes to those we don't trust?

Because their tenure as admins didn't involve overthrowing a government and losing the trust of a region that placed an enormous amount of it in you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk