I have a few thoughts thus far. As I mentioned in legislators-lounge, the reason I didn't comment a ton in my OP on the inactivity of the MoC (despite the article criticizing it being the obvious catalyst for the outburst) is that while I am extremely active in some areas, namely the MoE's cards team and SPSF, I maintain a relatively low profile elsewhere, including cultural events and in the Assembly. I don't feel like I can be the one to comment a whole lot

But I don't think it's entirely fair to blame this incident on the RA split. This is NOT an appropriate time to single out lack of activity after two months and say "look! This is proof the RA split is a failure!" I feel like Belschaft, as an opponent of the split, is trying to use this to rush to judgment when it suits his political positions, and I'm not buying it. Lest we forget that in real life, there is a pandemic bearing down on all of us, and people's real lives are in quite a bit of chaos. Inactivity/the RA split is NOT why I brought the recall motion. Rather, it was a specific instance of inactivity PLUS the out-of-line comments and behavior by a Cabinet minister. I do not think it is appropriate to pass judgment on the RA split, or other functions of government, at this time because of inactivity and Swifty's actions.

Certainly this whole situation is a gigantic wake-up call that we need to focus our efforts more on training new talent and preparing them for leadership, but once again that doesn't have anything to do with the RA split. The old MoRA was an absolute monstrosity and I'm personally quite pleased with the split. At least one of the three ministries, the MoE, is performing extremely well thanks to an engaged and extremely competent minister who runs the office like a well-oiled machine. It's a model for what the other two ministries could and should look like. Unfortunately, there are other systemic issues at play here that in my opinion have little to do with the split itself.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

Reply

I figured something like this would happen after the MoRA split and seeing the options we had in the election for some of these positions. Just an observation.

Then why on earth did you vote for it?

As you say, something like this was predictable and predicted. It’s among the reasons why I voted against the stupid idea.

Sorry but thanks to the split, 
- Not all regional affairs work is paralyzed
- You can hold the person who is responsible for this specific thing accountable. 

If there was no split, the MoRA minister would have avoided this recall since they would have had "too much work to do" or "hey I am excellent at media, sorry that culture and integration are in the trashbin, you can surely forgive me right?" as an excuse. I am sure if this was MoRA, the entire ship including myself and Farengeto (assuming he still works) will sink if we are holding the equivalent positions under the minister even though we aren't responsible for this in any capacity. 

People who are bringing the split issue up is very much trying to bait another drama here. The split has nothing to do with this and in fact, it remedied the situation by making sure the still-functioning pieces of regional affairs are still in place and only rejects the one that doesn't function. 

If you have to bring up a systemic issue, ask why we don't have candidates who are competent instead. Since with split or no split, the competent people don't run and hence, the Assembly keeps electing people who would have been fired in a real-life job position. 

This region will not achieve what it sets out not because of structural issues or some foreign actors are in play. It will be because the some leaders (for present problems, those of the past) (I emphasize "some", since we do have people who are good at this) either completely neglect training new members or are incompetent by themselves and fail as a role model but they just keep winning the votes. I think the verdict is clear, as a community we need to value competence and and the will to train people more. The community needs to throw words like "experience" out of the window and only focuses on competence. If new people aren't competent, it is your damn fault. It is like blaming students for being stupid when you are a terrible teacher. No matter how good or bad your environment is, your success is primarily defined by your own competence. The only excuse here is RL problems you can't foresee.

Chief Supervising Armchair

(This post was last modified: 12-29-2020, 10:12 AM by USoVietnam.)

Reply

The community needs to throw words like "experience" out of the window and only focuses on competence. If new people aren't competent, it is your damn fault. It is like blaming students for being stupid when you are a terrible teacher. No matter how good or bad your environment is, your success is primarily defined by your own competence. The only excuse here is RL problems you can't foresee.

Leaving aside the whole issue of the split, which to this day remains the same placebo that it was when it was passed, the rhetoric in the quoted part feels needlessly divisive. Why should concepts like experience and competence be opposites or mutually exclusive?

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

(This post was last modified: 12-29-2020, 10:40 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

I can see this thread turning into arguments about the MoRA split and regionalism/cosmopolitanism.
Just a reminder, we are discussing @Swifty.

In my opinion, in this case there was a line between being funny and being aggressive, and this line was crossed. Whether this merits a recall I don’t know.

Spoiler

Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)

Reply

In my opinion, in this case there was a line between being funny and being aggressive, and this line was crossed. Whether this merits a recall I don’t know.

I think it makes sense to consider the effect the loss would have in this case, because there isn't a clear cut case for removing swifty either.

If we were to get rid of swifty, we'd also have to deal with the process of finding a new minister, then do that again at the next cabinet elections. We'd also have to deal with the lost work from the lack of coordination - and once some semblance of order is returned, there would be yet another incoming leadership change and not much time left for the plans to come to fruition.

Going off this information, it doesn't seem like it would be worth it to enforce our standards for a ministry lead so much in this kind of situation.

I don't know too much of the current matter so I'm going to stay neutral for now - this all relies on the assumption that the act wasn't too severe, so proof to the opposite effect can pretty easily make it a moot point. I just thought I'd give a counter-argument.

(This post was last modified: 12-29-2020, 10:41 PM by Jebediah.)

Reply

I can see this thread turning into arguments about the MoRA split and regionalism/cosmopolitanism.
Just a reminder, we are discussing @Swifty.

In my opinion, in this case there was a line between being funny and being aggressive, and this line was crossed. Whether this merits a recall I don’t know.

I may be missing something, but I actually read this as a matter of security. W&S is saying that Swifty's comments inappropriately shared privileged Cabinet information in a public setting — whether in jest or aggression. 

If this is the case, we can't adequately make a determination of the recall merits without knowing what particular information was shared and whether other members of the Cabinet find this equally problematic. 

I don't have strong feelings here at the moment, but I don't think we should shy away from recalling someone because it's complicated. And, if my reading is correct and W&S is concerned that this represents a security issue and isn't simply actions unbecoming of a Cabinet member, then perhaps having no one in the role is better than having someone privvy to information they might leak — in jest or anger.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

You are correct, Tsu. My concern was for security when I heard the outburst. I was worried that potentially privileged information could be leaked to outsiders. It was stopped quickly, but I still felt the need to bring forth the motion to make the Assembly aware of a potential security breach first and foremost. However, I did so knowing that there was additional cause for concern related to the ministry’s general lack of activity, and the two together made a reasonable case for a recall. I’m not a hundred percent sure either incident on its own would be cause for a recall, but the outburst over criticism in a public forum in front of our allies, possible leaking of classified info, plus the criticism of inactivity itself, makes in my eyes for a rather convincing case.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

(This post was last modified: 12-30-2020, 04:53 PM by Witchcraft and Sorcery.)

Reply

You are correct, Tsu. My concern was for security when I heard the outburst. I was worried that potentially privileged information could be leaked to outsiders. It was stopped quickly, but I still felt the need to bring forth the motion to make the Assembly aware of a potential security breach first and foremost. However, I did so knowing that there was additional cause for concern related to the ministry’s general lack of activity, and the two together made a reasonable case for a recall. I’m not a hundred percent sure either incident on its own would be cause for a recall, but the outburst over criticism in a public forum in front of our allies, possible leaking of classified info, plus the criticism of inactivity itself, makes in my eyes for a rather convincing case.

I've said this a couple of times before but I'll say it again. It was supposed to be an over-reaction in a funny way, not as an actual over-reaction and out-burst. If was interpreted differently, I can understand that but my intentions were to be funny, not to be mad. I can see that now, it probably wasn't funny but those weren't my intentions and I'm sorry if it came out looking like that.

swifty
Nation: Imperial Dodo
Discord Tag: swiftygamer#1448

---

SWAN Awards

Other Achievements/Roles:
- Minister of Culture (October 2020 - February 2021)
- SPSF Tidal Force Coordinator (April 2021 - Present)
- Deputy Chair of the Assembly (September 2020 - October 2020)
- MoM Member (October 2020 - Present)
- MoE Member (October 2020 - Present)
- Cabinet Advisor (August 2020 - October 2020)
- A TSP Legislator (July 2020 - Present)
- SPSF Soldier (June 2020 - Present)
- Ambassador to South Pacific (August 2020 - October 2020)
- Ambassador to The League (April 2021 - Present)
- Local Council Candidate (July/August 2020)
- Chair of the Assembly Candidate (September 2020)
- The MasterMind behind SPSFphoenixcoup2020
- The Loyal Servant of Goddess Phoenix
- The Most Active Member of OWL
- A very cute bear on the outside but on the inside, well, no one knows...

Reply

You are correct, Tsu. My concern was for security when I heard the outburst. I was worried that potentially privileged information could be leaked to outsiders. It was stopped quickly, but I still felt the need to bring forth the motion to make the Assembly aware of a potential security breach first and foremost. However, I did so knowing that there was additional cause for concern related to the ministry’s general lack of activity, and the two together made a reasonable case for a recall. I’m not a hundred percent sure either incident on its own would be cause for a recall, but the outburst over criticism in a public forum in front of our allies, possible leaking of classified info, plus the criticism of inactivity itself, makes in my eyes for a rather convincing case.

I've said this a couple of times before but I'll say it again. It was supposed to be an over-reaction in a funny way, not as an actual over-reaction and out-burst. If was interpreted differently, I can understand that but my intentions were to be funny, not to be mad. I can see that now, it probably wasn't funny but those weren't my intentions and I'm sorry if it came out looking like that.

Swifty ... that's not quite the point, as I was trying to make clear above. The question is about what was said not how it was.

Edit: If you're saying it was purposefully over the top but you weren't actually including any closed door information, that something different than saying it was a joke that landed wrong.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 12-30-2020, 05:55 PM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

I may be missing something, but I actually read this as a matter of security. W&S is saying that Swifty's comments inappropriately shared privileged Cabinet information in a public setting — whether in jest or aggression. 

If this is the case, we can't adequately make a determination of the recall merits without knowing what particular information was shared and whether other members of the Cabinet find this equally problematic. 

I don't have strong feelings here at the moment, but I don't think we should shy away from recalling someone because it's complicated. And, if my reading is correct and W&S is concerned that this represents a security issue and isn't simply actions unbecoming of a Cabinet member, then perhaps having no one in the role is better than having someone privvy to information they might leak — in jest or anger.

I generally agree with this - though as I've said in my post, I think it's more than just "it's complicated" - it would have a pretty negative effect on anything planned for the next few weeks, and I think that it's important that progress is made and activity is kept because that kind of momentum allows a group to stay together and stay active. 

Unless it is really needed as a security measure to not have swifty as the minister, it would be much more detrimental to the ministry in general if it had to go through a leadership change like this.

...Actually, if no information was shared at all, then there wouldn't be much ground for a recall:
 

XI. (1) Any official of the Coalition may be recalled by an Assembly resolution passed with a three-fifths majority of those voting.
a. Recalls should only be initiated for dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violations of the law, and not for purposes of political rivalry.

The only other reason is possibly dereliction of duty, though I don't think the inactivity we've seen really deserves that either.

However, to be sure, we need to know:

1. What information (if any) that is strictly private was shared in the incident
   
2. How active has the minister been over their term
   

Reply