As of posting, Beepee's vote is in support of Commend Imkiville, a dishonest and disingenuous commendation of somebody who committed a coup against our region. OWL has not issued a recommendation, let alone solicited opinions for one, which is incredibly strange. Beepee's vote, I presume, is simply following the raw regional vote (which is 189 for - 32 against, as of writing). There's been nothing said from the Cabinet on this obviously contentious issue, which is even more strange. What gives? The Security Council is commending a notorious figure in our history, and TSP is voting for it? Why? Our allies 10000 Islands and The Rejected Realms have cast their vote against, even.

When I brought up Commend Imkiville on Discord before it reached quorum, the Prime Minister basically dismissed anything I had to say as a victim of Imki's coup. Prime Minister W&S seemed to value their personal friendship with Imki above anything else. Is that what's at play, here? I'm struggling to see why there's been total silence from the Cabinet and OWL on this commendation. Does the Cabinet not care about the opinions of the victims of the coup-- myself and Farengeto former Prime Ministers, our current Chief Justice, members of the Council on Regional Security? That's certainly how it's coming across, given the total silence and how concerns were dismissed when I raised them weeks ago.

Has the Prime Minister told OWL not to issue a recommendation, or is this something Director Anjo decided on their own? Why did OWL not even solicit opinions, which is the normal process that's happened for every other Security Council resolution? Why did the Cabinet not issue a directive itself, given the importance and relevance of this commendation to our history and to the TSPers who she targeted? Again, the silence is strange and doesn't speak well of the Cabinet's intentions.

Commend Imkiville distorts Imki's history in TSP. I don't care if anybody thinks Imki's time helming the SPSF was great. The commendation says literally nothing about her coup and the horribly negative impact she had on TSP in every other respect. TSP voting for this commendation is so damaging to our own ability to preserve an honest recounting of our history. And the Cabinet is just going to try and quietly let this pass, with TSP helping ratify the dishonest and disingenuous rose-colored version of history?

As a legislator, former Prime Minister, former MoFA, member of the CRS, and a primary target of Imki's coup with Hileville, I formally request that the Cabinet direct OWL to issue a recommendation voting against Commend Imkiville. I formally request Delegate Beepee vote against Commend Imkiville. I request that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, along with the Director of OWL, disclose to the Assembly any and all policy discussions surrounding this commendation, particularly why OWL didn't solicit opinions for a recommendation or issue one at all.

(This post was last modified: 07-10-2021, 04:46 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Alright. I’ll respond on behalf of the Cabinet. I’m going to be releasing the thread I made in the Situation Room about it, which includes a conversation in the cabinet office Discord channel. See the Cabinet Order here: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9280-post-2...#pid218687

And here’s the Cabinet thread: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9537.html

A couple of things I would note in addition:
 

• The Cabinet discussed overriding in a few different ways. But we realized quickly there was no agreement on the matter, and decided it was better left in the hands of TSP citizens rather than put it in the hands of a few people.
  
• To that end, neither OWL nor Beepee were ever given any kind of directive from any member of the Cabinet on how to vote or the recommendation process surrounding the proposal. The thread which I have now made public was in the Situation Room, which is only accessible to senior Cabinet members. So no one outside of the Cabinet could see that discussion now, including OWL director Anjo.
  
• We will not be revising this decision. OWL/Delegate voting process will be allowed to proceed as normal without interference from the Cabinet.
  
• In conjunction with this issue, a discussion has already been opened as to the function (or rather, dysfunction) of OWL. Several Cabinet members and Anjo have all identified serious deficiencies in OWL that need to be resolved as soon as possible, and the Assembly and general public will be kept up to date on changes that are made to OWL.
  

 
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: 07-10-2021, 07:35 PM by Witchcraft and Sorcery.)

Reply

Alright. I’ll respond on behalf of the Cabinet. I’m going to be releasing the thread I made in the Situation Room about it, which includes a conversation in the cabinet office Discord channel. See the Cabinet Order here: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9280-post-2...#pid218687

And here’s the Cabinet thread: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-9537.html

Thank you.

I don't, however, find the rest of your response to actually answer all (or even most) of the questions I've posed.

The Cabinet discussed overriding in a few different ways. But we realized quickly there was no agreement on the matter, and decided it was better left in the hands of TSP citizens rather than put it in the hands of a few people.

Why was the Cabinet split? The discussion release doesn't illuminate that, and I don't believe that's the extent of what the Cabinet has discussed regarding "Commend Imkiville." MoFA Jay stated that PfS signatories were "aware we're divided internally on this issue." If this was the full extent of all discussions on the issue, I'm not sure how PfS would know of pre-existing internal division.

You're attempting to limit this to a process question, but it's not. I'm questioning why the Prime Minister, yourself, and other Cabinet members feel that it's appropriate for TSP to be sanctioning a commendation of a person who couped TSP, particularly when that commendation uses our history and name to support the commendation without ever mentioning that she couped. The last time TSP's own name and history was used to support the commendation of somebody who was hostile to us (and HEM didn't literally coup), the government at the very least requested our name not be used that way. OWL did open up a recommendation for it, like they're supposed to, and TSP did vote against the commendation.
 

We will not be revising this decision. OWL/Delegate voting process will be allowed to proceed as normal without interference from the Cabinet.

What decision? Everything you've said thus far is that the Cabinet didn't make a decision. Your decision is indecision? I would like to know why, and "so the people can decide" doesn't really pass the smell test. Everything you've said up through now has been rooted in your own personal opinions, and to quote yourself, you considering Imki a "friend." That's all we've heard from the Cabinet on the subject. This resolution has been in the pipeline for weeks, and from the logs the Cabinet has posted, the first it was discussed clearly wasn't 3 days ago.

If the Cabinet doesn't want to issue an override and have the Delegate vote against commending our couper, then the Cabinet needs to explain why. You've made it abundantly clear that you support the commendation. It seems like that's worked its way into your decision as Prime Minister, but the official line you're preferring to issue is that the Cabinet isn't taking a stand either way. But from the looks of it, the Cabinet isn't a taking a stand in large part because the Prime Minister doesn't want it to.

To be honest, W&S, you've been dismissive and disrespectful of those who oppose the commendation since the start. "god fucking dammit don't start this shit agian" -- the only reason this thread exists is because when I called out the Prime Minister (you) for supporting the commendation, you essentially told me to fuck off because Imki was your friend. The lack of Cabinet communication about this, the lack of the Prime Minister actually respectfully addressing the legitimate concerns of TSPers, all speak poorly in light of the only things we have heard you say... that you personally support the commendation, in part because Imki is your friend, and we need to just get over it. If that's your position as Prime Minister, then please own it so we can know where you stand.

The idea that the Cabinet doesn't have grounds to issue an override is simply wrong. Imki couped us. She's up for commendation. How TSP votes on that commendation is a diplomatic concern. The Cabinet can override for purposes of diplomacy. All respect to MoD HumanSanity, but "diplomacy" is not defined as "how this negatively impacts an ally."

Furthermore, I want to point out just how absurd the Cabinet's logs are. The Cabinet cannot seem to even agree that couping the region was bad, that Imki was wrong doing it, and that her history of couping the region should inform whether or not TSP's Delegate votes to commend her. No matter how you try and spin that, it's just ridiculous. At the very base, at this point in TSP's history and development, we should be able to expect the government to make a really easy decision on whether or not we should help reward somebody who couped us... regardless of personal friendships, feelings, or opinions. That we have a Prime Minister who doesn't seem to care about how Imki impacted long-time members of the region or how her couping hurt TSP for a long time and a Minister of Defense that apparently doesn't even know the history, is downright dismaying.

The Cabinet is supposed to lead, but it's clear that most of the ministers wanted to do anything but that when it came to this commendation. And from everything that's available to the public, it really boils down to the Prime Minister's personal support of Imki and her commendation. Why was that not separated from the duty of the Cabinet to stand up for the Coalition? Why are we, at this point in time, still lacking leadership that can stand up and defend the Coalition? For as much as you guys were all saying that the public deserves to decide and be informed... the Cabinet did nothing to help inform the region. Which only raises the question of what exactly the Cabinet would say when informing the region, because apparently we're still at the point where the propaganda of those who committed a coup is treated as truth and given more weight than the statements of long-serving members of our government?

I suspect the Cabinet did everything it could to avoid having to wade into the commendation, not just because W&S's personal support of it, but because at the core there's still a refusal to believe the victims the coup and a presumption that GP propaganda is more truthful and reliable. That is truly a sad state of affairs for this region. I just served a term as Prime Minister. Kris is Chief Justice of the High Court. Farengeto, along with us, is a member of the Council on Regional Security. We've done more than enough for TSP to show that we were and are always loyal to TSP. We've collectively held trusted positions that, well, by definition require us to be trustworthy. Yet when it comes to this commendation, and honestly the entire history of the Hileville/Imki coup, the current Prime Minister has been totally dismissive of what we have to say about it (and, frankly, downright rude and insulting), and those who say they aren't educated enough about it seemingly aren't willing to ask us about it and take what we have to say seriously. Why is this still the case?

Reply

MoFA Jay stated that PfS signatories were "aware we're divided internally on this issue." If this was the full extent of all discussions on the issue, I'm not sure how PfS would know of pre-existing internal division.

I'll just chime in to say that when I said "they", I was referring to XKI and not the PfS. I poorly worded that statement.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

To be honest, W&S, you've been dismissive and disrespectful of those who oppose the commendation since the start. "god fucking dammit don't start this shit agian" -- the only reason this thread exists is because when I called out the Prime Minister (you) for supporting the commendation, you essentially told me to fuck off because Imki was your friend ... If that's your position as Prime Minister, then please own it so we can know where you stand.

What

Local Councilroar.

Selfie

Reply

To chime in here, I too think it's inappropriate for the region to be voting in support of this commendation. We wouldn't support a commendation for Milo or anyone else who couped the region and we really shouldn't be supporting Imki's either, imo.

In light of the declassified thread, I would like to add that I strongly believe Imki is a relevant threat to the region. She's very clearly held a grudge against the region in the intervening years and, frankly, I was disturbed that during the discussion of her commendation she had comments I made years ago at the ready to criticize Glen. While it was hoped that the amnesty would bring the region closer together, Imki clearly used it as a means to gain power and, when she didn't get what she wanted, she lashed out and left the region. I don't think these signal that she's moved on in any regard and, frankly, I have come to believe amnesty — and the belief that this would blow over — was naive.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I think we would do well to separate the two issues at hand here: first, whether it is appropriate for the Cabinet to sanction the commendation of Imki (the policy issue), and second, why the Cabinet failed to provide transparency — in the form of an announcement, the standard OWL override procedure, or even simply a regular OWL vote — on such a highly controversial and greatly cared-about proposal (the process issue).

I personally couldn’t care less about the former; while I have an opinion myself, I believe the Cabinet should act on whatever its collective judgement happens to be. Glen is welcome to voice his disagreement with the Cabinet, and the Cabinet should certainly listen, but ultimately it’s nothing more than a subjective policy disagreement — not an objective blunder on the part of the Cabinet.

In contrast, the latter issue I find potentially more serious. The Cabinet’s logs indicate a willingness, particularly from the Prime Minister, to simply go radio silent on the proposal in order to sidestep it. That’s... just not an ideal strategy to see coming from our regional leadership. I think ministers HS and Luca made some very good points in the chats, but in the end the result was a collective lack of action on an item that very clearly required Cabinet action.

I also wish the Cabinet and/or Director of OWL (though I don’t particularly fault Anjo, since they’ve been on LoA) had directly brought up activity concerns with OWL’s senior staff sooner, including even when they needed the Commend Imki vote to go up, rather than only discussing it privately. I’m an OWL senior staff member; I’ve tuned out of TSP in general a bit lately, if you all haven’t noticed, but I’d have been very willing to put in fifteen minutes to open the Imki vote if anyone had asked. I know I haven’t been paying attention by the fact that I didn’t even really realize that OWL wasn’t getting to all its votes. But a little public kick from the Cabinet would have been helpful, rather than them just immediately jumping to privately complaining.

It is these process issues that I hope can be resolved, rather than the frankly useless personal dispute Glen has with anyone who doesn’t share his view about Imki and TSP.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

Reply

Why was the Cabinet split? The discussion release doesn't illuminate that

There was disagreement within the Cabinet about whether or not a recommendation/vote override should be done by the Cabinet. I think the discussion does make it clear why as the arguments are explained in the released discussion.

, and I don't believe that's the extent of what the Cabinet has discussed regarding "Commend Imkiville."

To my recollection, there has been no other discussion. And no other discussion was produced when I searched "Imki" in private Cabinet channels.

MoFA Jay stated that PfS signatories were "aware we're divided internally on this issue." If this was the full extent of all discussions on the issue, I'm not sure how PfS would know of pre-existing internal division.

I expect PfS signatories/XKI were referring to the NS forums thread, where TSP as a public (rather than as a government) seemed internally divided -- with citizens speaking out for and against the proposal and with different perspectives on why they were for and against.

and other Cabinet members feel that it's appropriate for TSP to be sanctioning a commendation of a person who couped TSP, particularly when that commendation uses our history and name to support the commendation without ever mentioning that she couped.

Speaking for myself as a Cabinet member, I feel that in a democracy the public should decide the process by which our WA votes are set, which they have in the World Assembly Act, the procedure of which has been followed in this particular case.

As I outlined in the thread, I think that there's many ways to slice this particular resolution. It invokes questions not even about history itself (history is clear that Imki couped TSP and that's wrong) but rather how that relates to the resolution and how Commendations themselves work: do you have to agree with the player's entire history to vote for? (I obviously don't agree with Imki's entire history.) Is it okay to talk about TSP as long as it doesn't talk about the coup? Is it not okay to talk about TSP but we could Commend just on the basis of Lazarus? Is there a hidden anti-TSP political motive? And then, there are non-philosophical questions: is the writing good enough? Was there enough drafting? Do the contributions meet the bar of Commendable? etc.

I don't think the Cabinet should override the WA vote of the region unless (1) something changes over the course of the vote that changes the fundamental facts about the vote and there is insufficient time for OWL to revote and/or the recommendation was already issued; (2) it was requested by an ally and the Cabinet believes the Assembly having charged it with maintenance of that alliance is a democratic mandate to intervene; or (3) the resolution would directly threaten the security/stability of the Coalition based on privileged information the Cabinet has access to. Barring those exigencies, all of which involve a fundamental level of information asymmetry between the Cabinet and the public and/or an imminent threat, I am inclined to let the vote decide through the normal process. To do otherwise, to me, would be anti-democratic and an abuse of power by me.

"so the people can decide" doesn't really pass the smell test

Speaking just for myself, "so the people can decide" is my position.

Imki couped us. She's up for commendation. How TSP votes on that commendation is a diplomatic concern. The Cabinet can override for purposes of diplomacy.

I do not understand the diplomatic goal of asking for an override. By that justification, all votes are diplomatic concern because they all involve taking a position. There is no privileged information (to my knowledge) that indicates voting one way or another would better serve the interests of TSP's diplomacy in ways the public can't determine for itself, nor do I believe the public is undergoing foreign interference to be induced into voting for this (although, I will agree that there's an external effort to narrative spin about this vote, but there's no evidence that narrative is affecting the judgement of TSPers on a significant enough scale).

All respect to MoD HumanSanity, but "diplomacy" is not defined as "how this negatively impacts an ally."

Correct, diplomacy is a lot more than how we relate to allies. But for the purposes of a diplomatic override of an OWL vote, I fail to see how establishing a clearer position on this would better serve our diplomacy, even if it may be related to diplomacy. Additionally, in a democracy I believe that democratic processes determine our positions unless there is asymmetric information that makes the public unable to make that determination or an imminent threat to our security.

The Cabinet cannot seem to even agree that couping the region was bad

Couping the region is bad and I clarified in the thread that I believe she couped the region. I do understand how you interpreted one thing I said otherwise, but I clarified in the forum discussion that I 100% agree with and understand as objective fact that she couped the region.

and that her history of couping the region should inform whether or not TSP's Delegate votes to commend her

I agree with that, I said the voters should decide the extent to which her coup of the region effects their vote in the context of the rest of the resolution. I wish OWL had been able to hold a discussion on this.

You equate a denialism of history with my position, and that's just inaccurate.

and a Minister of Defense that apparently doesn't even know the history, is downright dismaying.

I am not aware of the elaborate history of the coup, although I am aware of the fact she couped the region and am always going to bear true to the government of my region. If there were a source or set of sources I could review on the question to understand more details, that would be helpful since more knowledge of history is a good thing in any event.

and those who say they aren't educated enough about it seemingly aren't willing to ask us about it and take what we have to say seriously

You suggested you had compiled sources about it and were weighing whether to post them. I was genuinely hoping you would because to my knowledge there is no comprehensive history of the event, only bits and pieces someone hands you with a spin. Ultimately, the facts of history would not change my opinion that the people should decide how the history effects this specific Commendation proposal, but if you would like to take me to task for not understanding the history, I'm happy to learn.

I would like to add that I strongly believe Imki is a relevant threat to the region. She's very clearly held a grudge against the region in the intervening years and, frankly, I was disturbed that during the discussion of her commendation she had comments I made years ago at the ready to criticize Glen.

This is an argument that wasn't expressed in Cabinet discussion and I didn't know the history of on my own. Is Imki in a position right now to use such a platform to destabilize the Coalition or its foreign connections? I'm asking pointedly, but I don't know. I saw she criticized Glen, but that on its own did not make me think she presented an imminent threat to TSP.

The Cabinet’s logs indicate a willingness, particularly from the Prime Minister, to simply go radio silent on the proposal in order to sidestep it. That’s... just not an ideal strategy to see coming from our regional leadership. I think ministers HS and Luca made some very good points in the chats, but in the end the result was a collective lack of action on an item that very clearly required Cabinet action.

This criticism makes sense and I wish I had done more to initiate constructive communication with OWL about getting this vote out the door. I will also note that, as W&S said above, we have opened a dialogue with anjo in hopes that mistake does not happen again.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

(This post was last modified: 07-11-2021, 02:18 AM by HumanSanity.)

Reply

Glen, what I think is at the root of your complaint is the question you posed in legislator's lounge last week. This, to paraphrase, was "Why does it fall to me to educate on this topic?" And the answer is that we are years down the road from the event, and that distance is widening. The things that are important to you in this era will not be of the same paramount concern to newer members, nor will it be based on the same experience and perspective.

Speaking on behalf of myself in this situation, and having spent the majority of my time in NS governments in the WAA field, what I value most, above all, is the quality of a resolution and the ability for regions to represent their native opinion. In this regard, I have not found grounds to support overriding a native decision that has not even taken place.

I am aware that affected parties of the coup remain here, but my style of World Assembly engagement is to talk about the issues. As I said in the released logs, it's not possible for you to instruct someone on how to feel about the past. You cannot invoke that kind of manufactured passion out of nothing. However, you can make the case, give the evidence, explain the why and reason - talk about why it matters. If the argument is convincing, then that's the influence that pushes the vote and forms the substance of regional opinion and consensus.

What I am concerned with here is this debate and discussion did not happen due to no available senior OWL staff. But in the wider scope of the OWL practices and processes, it really cannot happen. This is all things I've said in both the OWL channel and Cabinet chambers before, but it's worth saying again. Even in an ideal situation where the Director and their senior staff are present to initiate a vote, debate and banter on World Assembly topics are hard pressed to take place on a distant RMB. Most parties who participate in this system get their pings from the discord or the gameside notification, drop in their vote (often without accompanying opinion), and depart, never to give it a second thought.

While I appreciate the initiative to involve the gameside community through an RMB, in situations like this where some citizens believe it constitutes a matter of regional pride or obligation to establish certain postures, if we cannot have that reasoned discussion and get the communication out, the system is unworkable. That's our cultural capital being evaporated and our ability to contribute to the argument kneecapped. Having seen this current system already exploited to manipulate us, I have even less desire to give it the benefit of the doubt.

In addition to this, the current template of our actual IFV is not particularly aligned to our region's agenda either. While we do have a short section on analysis, often summarising the few voter opinions we have, there is no comprehensive argument about what our own experienced WA staff believe is the real dilemma of a proposal. We supplement these with opinions collected from foreign regions, often citing influencers with their own agendas that more inexperienced staff may not recognise. Together, they form a single document, where TSP opinions may be weak or incoherent, and foreign opinions may appear more credible.

Even in perfect conditions, these opinions do not advance the international conversation on the topic, they just regurgitate and recycle what's already been said. This, too, restricts our own culture and muzzles our influence. At the same time, this largely bureaucratic and procedural work does not allow us to grow our own World Assembly authors-to-be, because it generates minimal practical experience engaging with WA topics, directly.

For these reasons, I believe that systemic reform of OWL is prudent, and I have made arguments in Cabinet chambers to this end.

Reply

I would like to add that I strongly believe Imki is a relevant threat to the region. She's very clearly held a grudge against the region in the intervening years and, frankly, I was disturbed that during the discussion of her commendation she had comments I made years ago at the ready to criticize Glen.

This is an argument that wasn't expressed in Cabinet discussion and I didn't know the history of on my own. Is Imki in a position right now to use such a platform to destabilize the Coalition or its foreign connections? I'm asking pointedly, but I don't know. I saw she criticized Glen, but that on its own did not make me think she presented an imminent threat to TSP.

Unless I misread something (which, to be fair could have happened as I responded rather late my time), W&S said that Imki couldn't possibly be a security threat because she is active in our Discord server, and served in the Cabinet after the coup. That's the comment I was referring to.

To be fair, she's not actively a threat right now, but could easily be in the future. It's rare that someone is going to overrun a region, but much easier to ingratiate themselves in the community, earn power and then misuse it. Which leads to the long and short of it (which I didn't have the clarity to articulate late night): our vote in support of this commendation gives her cover to say "It really wasn't that bad / the region supports(ed) me / look they even voted to commend me!"

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply