I want to discuss the recent issue here regarding Belschaft and "Operation Brave Little Toaster" and the attempt to commit electoral fraud.  New information that came from that discussion in which Belschaft ultimately threatened me and Kris.

The new information that came to light by Belschaft's own post and confession is in this post. Quoted below:

"3. As I have previously made clear, I suspected possible electoral fraud and discussed it with several people. Whilst attempting to confirm it we also considered possible responses if we couldn't acquire sufficient proof to bring to court. The entire matter was abandoned after about two days. Among the people talked to were CSS members who's names I kept out of the matter to avoid them being hurt by the political assassination attempt I got hit with."


Emphasis on CSS members being aware, allegedly, of Belschaft's plot to commit electoral fraud.


I understand that I wasn't here at the time and that for reasons that I do not understand he was allowed to get off with an apology.  Considering that in the post quoted above he called the entire unethical and treasonous plot (yes, it's treasonous to willfully plot to destroy the democratic process) a "political assassination" and that he had broken no laws.


My first concern is the allegation that CSS members were involved. Article 7 of the Charter was revised and put in place to make sure that there is a clear hierarchy and that the Delegate and Vice Delegate are informed of CSS actions. The CSS is just as accountable as any other agency and they are accountable to the Delegate. They need to file reports about such incident and it its not in the law then let's revise the State of Emergency report so that the CSS must write reports on all such incidents. Then, Belschaft must provide evidence of such an allegation because to state that the CSS themselves is involved undermines the agency, its reputation and our trust in its fairness.


There are a few reasons I have brought up this issue:


Based on the actions taken we have a few options:


1. We throw out our laws and allow Milograd and any other offenders their citizenship back. Milograd has apologized and shown remorse for his actions. Therefore, he like Belschaft should be allowed to come back, run for office\delegate\etc. After all both of them only abused their political positions to undermine the democratic process. One was caught before he could make it happen due to a whistle blower and the other had to be forcibly removed.


Both had the same justification, "Other people were abusing their power so I decided to do the same."


2. We decide here and now that all laws apply to all citizens equally. Me, you, Belschaft, etc. We figure out a suitable and appropriate punishment and apply it. It is such a bad precedent to let anyone get away with such things.


My personal feeling is that Belschaft, based on a series of actions outlined earlier regarding his abuse of authority or trust, needs some form of rehabilitation and that he be forbidden from running for any government positions for one  year and instead be assigned some form of community service where he can still contribute his skills such as writing legislation but without having access to power that can be abused. Call it "consultant."


Then, one thing he has shown again and again is a refusal to accept responsibility for his actions and mistakes. A public apology to the citizens of TSP and acknowledgement of his crimes so that he cannot (as he did in the linked thread) flaunt his breaking of the rules.


This is a serious issue. One that we need to address or we set up a very dangerous precedent. 

I believe the solution lies in pursuing criminal charges against Belschaft - and meanwhile, (as proposed in the GC) we should get rid of the defamation charges, which as Belschaft have proven, are just a way for people to intimidate other people to remain silent. I really didn't like that he used the court as an ultimatum to get someone to apologize for saying what they believed.

I agree about both things, do you want to start a thread about how to revise the defamation legislation? I mean not that it intimidated me as evident, but I don't want any new people to be intimidated by that kind of rhetoric.

I've already suggest revising the defamation legislation in the GC.

Yes, I did see that. I'm going to try to revise the wording today. Honestly, I'm always afraid of revising legislation because the qualities needed (being succinct and precise) sometimes elude me but its important to try.

Justice can be delayed, but Justice will always be served.

I'd just like to weigh in on this and say that no one should use the Court as a political tool and we will deal with all cases brought before us impartiality and without bias.

Well, as far as I can see, Bel's statement is either defamation (under the current laws) if it is false or there is someone in the CSS (maybe ex-member/s) is not doing their job properly and we have a problem there. I think it is time to come clean Bel, as anyone in the CSS is under suspicion now, most (like myself) who had no idea about it until it all hit the fan.

I do think it would be prudent for an investigation to happen in the CSS, either internally or by some special person. I think that chances are some discussions occurred, but were misinterpreted, or the members who did discuss things for real are no longer in the CSS for other reasons.

Either way, the notion that our main security organ was allegedly involved in plans, however nascent at the time, to rig our elections or get admins to push people out, is concerning.

What we need is a list of CSS members who were active during this time frame.