| Declassified: Resolution of Empire Concern |
Bel has provided his defense in the thread, and even posted his "deposition" of Roavin. So I think that's a requirement fulfilled.
As for this ex post facto argument-- it would basically mean that any security-threatening behavior that began prior to the passage of the SPA would be totally non-actionable, even if we know everything about it and consider it an ongoing and imminent threat. That's absurd for obvious reasons. Security isn't criminal law enforcement. Somebody can be a threat without breaking any laws at all. Regardless of that fundamentally true statement, using the SPA against Bel isn't ex post facto, because his actions *were* a threat before and they *remain* an ongoing threat now. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't consider the requirement fulfilled. I insist on this Committee meeting the requirements of the law in good faith, rather than doing what it can to remove Belschaft as soon as possible.
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
Belshaft gave his statement, though. He's been afforded the opportunity to give his defense to the CRS, and he did it in the Assembly thread. That's a literal fulfillment of that requirement. What counts as fulfilling that, if not that?
Let me ask directly: is the goal here to just punish him and get this over with as quickly as possible?
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
I've been continuing this investigation by getting comments from Roavin and Vietnam, so no, that's not the purpose. However, it's absolutely reasonable that most of us would have our minds made up at this point. We did, after all, already conduct an investigation. We've been conducting it for weeks now. It's not as if we're just now looking into things now that we've triggered the SPA. The SPA was written well into the investigatory process.
What exactly do you *want*, again? It's a frequent question, because you aren't clear in what your criticism are and what you think should be happening. Bel has made about a dozen lengthy posts in the Assembly threads, sent several PMs to CRS members, argued at length on Discord, including a private one he set up for a couple days just for the investigation. What, exactly, counts as fulfilling the requirement to you? That he summarize everything he's said and personally PM every CRS member? I get that you want a fair process. But your procedural criticisms have delayed this investigation for a while now, which has severely weakened our case by merely letting it wither on the vine. Tell me what you actually want to do! What is it, specifically, step by step, that makes an investigation fair and based on the rules? Because frankly Kris, you haven't been conducting an investigation! I have, Tsu has. Roavin has. It's very frustrating that we're putting in hours of work into this investigation, which you're not seeing because you're not there, and then when we reach a conclusion or want to make a decision, we have to stop and potentially redo everything because you're not convinced any real investigation has taken place! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't plan to use the CSS chat channel. If that's the standard for being informed of Committee business, we might as well do away with this subforum. Based on the evidence available to me of this subforum, I keep hearing you have interviewed people, yet see nothing of those interviews. As far as I know, you're basing your conclusions on the previous investigation.
You'll forgive me for going further, but quite frankly you look way too trigger-happy for me to feel comfortable about accepting your conclusions just like that, and to be fair, you're not the only one that I see in that way. I'm not even sure punitive action needs to be applied on Belschaft; at least not as urgently or as seriously as I once did. I'm much more concerned with the attitude of the current and former SPSF leadership towards this whole situation, but we can't look into that because you're deciding that we've investigated enough. As for why I'm not investigating? Because I happen to believe the CSS is a collegial body, and something as significant as an investigation of this magnitude should only happen once we agree to do it, not to mention because doing otherwise would be a waste of time and resources: why investigate on my own if the CSS might vote not to investigate? I have plenty to do elsewhere, not to mention plenty going on IRL, and I've no time to do investigations that will be rendered useless by a simple vote. Now, to be fair, I do believe the investigation we already conducted is a significant step forward. 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. But we can't do that if we decide we've done enough, and vote to punish him in such a rush. 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
No one is "punishing" him. The point is to do enough to ensure that he's not going to hand the region over to The Empire while giving him as much freedom as possible. By framing it as a "punishment" you're playing into the fact that there was something he did wrong/illegal and not just is a questionable force in the region.
Further, I'm going to say that I'm sick of this Discord shit. We get that you don't want to use it, Kris, and we make a ton of effort to get information here. Unless there's discussion that I've missed as well, we move everything over here. I don't know what else we want in an "investigation"? We want a joint forum where he can post his denial, again? At the end of the day, we already did the investigation. Glen typed it up, we had a long discussion on it with the Cabinet and we decided to release it to the Assembly. In the months since, Bel has just had enough time to figure out how to parse this to not look quite so bad.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
If you want to carry on with your vote, please go ahead. Count my Nay.
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
And a nay from me as well.
At what point does it become unreasonable to stymie action because you believe it's necessary to receive a carbon copy post from Belschaft, reiterating everything he has already said?
I have asked Belschaft to give us an additional official response to the dossier we have posted, or to simply let us know that he believes his public responses thus far suffice. This is something you could also have done, Kris, rather than grandstand about fulfilling technicalities and ignoring the substance of the law and this investigation. There is a lot of mention of how "we" can't do this just because "we" decide we've done enough, and a lot of opinions about how much there's left to do. You haven't participated in this the entire time, to the incredible frustration of the rest of us here. I don't want to be very harsh, but there's a reality we need to acknowledge. You've been the least informed person throughout this whole process, and yet pretty much every aspect of the investigation has been molded and changed around the objections you bring up to the work others are doing. This isn't a job where you get to have the final say, but put in none of the work. If you want to be here, then you need to be here. That means being where we actually talk, Discord. Petty objections based on who started the server aren't an excuse to remain in the dark voluntarily. This body has *always* done 99% of its work through real time chat. If you have plenty to do elsewhere, to the point where you see no reason to engage in an investigation about a serious potential threat, then you ought to evaluate why you're here. I maintain these forums, run the Assembly, and moderate the NSGA, and I still have time to put in the work here too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |