| Welcome to Europeia! So what the heck is Europeia anyways? Can I join? So, I came here representing another region? I do not want to become a citizen. Where should I go? What offices are there for people to be elected into? What is there for me to do in Europeia? That answers most of my immediate questions. What if I have any more? |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Forgotten Story; On the Office of the Supreme Chancellors | ||
|---|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 30 2017, 03:37 AM (874 Views) | ||
| Trinnien | May 30 2017, 06:12 PM Post #16 | |
|
Fluffy
![]()
|
WL and I had chatted on this topic a bit last night before he posted the article. I agreed with him in his sentiment, understood his frustrations, and agreed that ultimately Mouse - in this case - probably did overstep her bounds. I don't believe she deserves the level of heat she's getting directed at her recently, but McEntire and Erica summed up what should likely be better approaches with each other in the other recent EBC article. I did however pose the question to Writinglegend wondering if the Chancellery has a duty to publicly comment on a President's use, or lack thereof, of the tools at their disposal. The example I gave to WL was if a President decided to ignore the EAAC altogether during the term, wouldn't the members of the EAAC be in the right to call that out? It's a tough spot since the usage of the EAAC (and its topics) are classified but if a President is not engaging in such a matter shouldn't that be brought to the public's attention? Likewise, if a President decides not to use Tomlinson at all or similar; does the public deserve the right to know that? Ultimately, I think that the public does deserve to know if their elected officials aren't performing or engaging to their best ability behind the scenes. But, I understand it's a gray area to actually traverse. |
|
|
What's In A Name? Political History Awards | ||
| off | Quote | |
| Pichtonia | May 30 2017, 06:47 PM Post #17 | |
|
The Most Boring
![]()
|
Their duty is written in law and I think it's absolutely correct to stick to that. The usage of Tomlinson did, in my humble view, at no time influence the work of the Ministers negatively. At least I can say that for myself. If there had indeed been a negative influence on the term, and I'd say the same about your EAAC case*, then I think it's for the electorate to deal with that accordingly. Otherwise you might create an environment where leaks are warranted by subjective feelings of duty, and if that's not even outright dangerous, I at least consider it to be a break from the rule of law. * Naturally, within reason. If the EAAC had knowledge of some major threat and the President ignored it, I also believe someone should be informed about that. (Not necessarily the public though) |
|
|
Please let me introduce you to myself: Pichtonia Seymour-Somerset
| ||
| on | Quote | |
| Trinnien | May 30 2017, 07:10 PM Post #18 | |
|
Fluffy
![]()
|
It should be the duty of those with privileges within those arenas to speak out. I was AG during WL's term, and there was at least a two week period where there was literally not a single post in Tomlinson and no official chat in the Discord channel either. I know I had vented to Mouse a few times about the lack of visible direction from WL during that term - I couldn't speak to if WL or Aex (who was VP) were directly communicating with Ministers as my role as AG didn't really require much one-on-one with either of them. It's then possible that, in her ability as an Admin, she was able to confirm that I was correct in saying that Tomlinson had seen little use. Was it her place to call WL out? Was it mine (or another member of the Executive)? But WL was burnt out that term and the public does have, in my opinion, the right to know if the President is working to the best of his ability. | |
|
What's In A Name? Political History Awards | ||
| off | Quote | |
| Pichtonia | May 30 2017, 07:39 PM Post #19 | |
|
The Most Boring
![]()
|
Now that probably doesn't change much, I know I would still disagree with the handling in both cases, but Mouse was in fact a SC and not an admin, as others have noticed before. What I will also say is that I don't think you can equate the cases of you talking about your habits of interaction with WL as your President or Mouse as SC talking about the subforum contents of a government she did not belong to. Anyways, what you are saying is that it should be a duty and it's your opinion that the public has a right to know. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you, because there is neither such a duty enshrined in our law nor is it a matter of views whether there is a right to know. If you wish to change that for the future, I'd still disagree with you based on reasons I have told in here before, but then I think you should fight for it legislatively. I can imagine you'd find others who agree with you. As it stands, in regards to the handling of the case of this article or hypothetical similar cases, I don't think there is an excuse. And whether the handling can be forgiven is a different matter that I don't want to delve into - I just wanted to make an argument about the handling and behaviour in general, not about characters. |
|
|
Please let me introduce you to myself: Pichtonia Seymour-Somerset
| ||
| on | Quote | |
| Trinnien | May 30 2017, 07:59 PM Post #20 | |
|
Fluffy
![]()
|
I guess for me the question is who holds those in position of power to account. You were held to account during President Aexnidaral's term. But who holds the President to account if the actions they are taking (or not taking) are behind the scenes and outside of public discourse? A VP or Minister could come forward and make a claim, but then be promptly fired by the accused President. Sure, at that point, it's likely the People or the Senate would take action against a "rogue" President; but what if that President isntn't so blunt in their action and manage to make a convincing argument to win over people? Ultimately, its the Public that holds us all to account. But for that to occur, the Public must be aware of the instances where an individual is not acting in the interests of the Republic or fulfilling their duty that they have been tasked with. If no one is allowed to call out someone when they have the knowledge , whether being by told by a member of Government or through their powers as Admin/the Chancellery; then the Public is limited only to putting their faith that what their elected official tells them is true. If it wasn't for the leaks coming out of the White House here in the US and only went by their official line: the Russia scandal is all fake news and its a conspiracy by the Deep State. I'll fully admit it's a slippery slope, and I don't want to condone the behavior. But I think there are definitely times the Public has the right to know if their government is working for them or not. |
|
|
What's In A Name? Political History Awards | ||
| off | Quote | |
| Rach | May 30 2017, 08:14 PM Post #21 | |
|
At Least 5% Sugar
![]()
|
In 2010, during Anumia's term... discontent Ministers would give anonymous information and article to newspapers (generally if not always Aftermath Entertainment) to publish. So it is possible to make claims without being fired.
I think that it is not appropriate at all for Admins or the Chancellery to be doing this. Let's not forget that many members of our chancellery are intimately involved in politics as well. I mean, the whole example of doing this during the WL term was incredibly partisan and on the very very low end of 'rogue President'. You speak of a slippery slope, but this is nowhere near where that sort of behaviour should be justified. |
|
|
♥ Love and Kindness are never wasted ♥ The 2011 President of the Year Queen of Balder Unofficial Navy Girl | ||
| off | Quote | |
| Darcness | May 30 2017, 08:47 PM Post #22 | |
![]()
|
This stirred a memory. So I went looking. I found this allegation that eventually culminated in this result. There's a lot that can read between the lines when these two situations are compared. |
|
![]() The Rt. Hon. Darcness ESS ESE ED EMC
| ||
| off | Quote | |
| Deepest House | May 30 2017, 09:38 PM Post #23 | |
|
When you're not concerned with succeeding, you can work with complete freedom.
![]()
|
Often times the single misuse of an office leads to a rightful resignation. We saw it with Kraken and is sort of like Trinnien, in the sense that after a single instance of alleged wrongdoing, he felt compelled to resign his position. It is often the only thing that can begin the process of restoring personal integrity. I'm not calling for any resignations, simply making an observation. Edited by Deepest House, May 30 2017, 09:39 PM.
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() HEM:
| ||
| on | Quote | |
| Mousebumples | May 30 2017, 10:56 PM Post #24 | |
|
If you give this mouse a cookie, she'll probably ask for some cheese.
![]()
|
I will admit that this particular piece was more hard-hitting than - in retrospect - was probably warranted at the time. Before I get into the meat of the details of WL's post, I want to specifically rebut this statement that he included within his piece:
I apologized to him in Discord (and I can share logs, if needed, but I will maintain the privacy of what I said there unless WL wants to dispute my statement), and I also apologized in the thread itself, specifically in this post. (see the last line) ** Regarding, my "SC all-access pass," I addressed that to some extent in this post in the CA that I made earlier, but I can and will go into more detail here. I don't remember everything that I "gained access to" as Supreme Chancellor that I didn't already have access to prior. However, I do know that I can see more now than I did then. I'm hoping that naming forums won't get me in trouble for a Protected Areas Act violation, but here's a quick list, as best as I can recall. What I gained access to as SC that I didn't have access to as VC: -Situation Room -Tomlinson -Founder's Study -Nebraska -Senate Prelim Discussions What I still didn't have access to as SC, before I was made admin: -A lot of the Navy subforums. I can't remember which ones, but I wasn't in most of those. -The hidden Court subforums. I could guess at their names, but I figure those that can see them know which ones I'm talking about. The Supreme Chancellery - for me - wasn't an All-Access pass. The things I gained access to were related, in my view, to the new promotion I was receiving (from VC to SC) and the associated responsibilities. 1) Sit Room - Correct or not, the SC's have traditionally had access here. Perhaps that one should have been more classified as "Admin" versus "SC," and that's certainly worth debating in the future. 2) Founder's Study & Nebraska - Access granted at my request when I wanted to have a forum-based place to plan stuff for SC things. It's still fairly lightly used, but - for example - when we drafted the SC statement/speech on harassment, we did that in that location. 3) Senate Prelim - I think Honored Citizens (previously) could see this, so it being granted with Senate Speaking Rights (as SC) makes sense. 4) Tomlinson - As I alluded to in the CA thread, there have been conversations there in the past that SCs have chimed in on. I don't want to disclose those details, but that was why we (Lethen and I and possibly other admins) decided to add Tomlinson access as a part of my SC mask. Additionally, I had talked to the President at that time of my confirmation (Trinnien) to clarify if he was comfortable with me viewing and chiming in on Tomlinson discussions. I don't believe that I had a similar conversation with WL when he was elected President, and that is definitely something that - in retrospect - I should have done differently. I did make a point of asking that question of Calvin recently, but I don't remember if I talked to Aexnidaral about that when he was President. And now this is reminding me that I should check in with Darcness too ... >_> ** My "hit piece" was pretty much what the title said - Why I Resigned. When you feel unappreciated and attacked for no good reason, people resign. (Breaking news.) Writinglegend alleges in the article above that, "the Supreme Chancellor in question went into Tomlinson to reinforce a hit piece against someone she politically disagreed with." I forget the exact timeline (with regards to when my resignation happened, relative to all of this), but I remember there being posts or statements made somewhere (forum or Discord, I frankly don't remember as 6+ months have passed) that we had talked about repealing the Spam Accords prior to my posting them to Gameplay. I had zero memory of this happening, and I checked various relevant places that I could view to see if I had completely missed or forgotten said post or discussion. I didn't find it - as alluded to in the piece I posted - and the only way I could refute the public statements was to post what wasn't there. If you're going to attack me in public for totally fucking up FA policy by posting something to Gameplay when we had "discussed repealing it before I posted it" ... why shouldn't I be able to defend myself by saying that the discussion you claim that we had isn't anywhere that I can find? If you're going to hold me responsible for something that I admitted - in retrospect - I shouldn't have done or should have done differently, why should the President be able to claim/allude that a conversation that never happened exists in a protected area? I mentioned this in my CA post as well, but I wasn't sure if my making that reference in the piece would be legal prior to my doing so. I remember consulting with at least one Europeian legal scholar - and possibly a few - to check and see if that was legal, since I wasn't sure if that was kosher or not. I was told that since I wasn't disclosing info - only observing on what was not present - it should be legally permissible. At the time of that posting in Europeia, I was the recently-resigned WA Delegate (with associated EAAC access) and Supreme Chancellor (who technically had Tomlinson access as a result of that, but I think - though I won't check so I'm not technically disclosing anything, hopefully - I had probably chimed in a on a few WA related topics there through my two-hats thing). The blending of offices and which side of which person is doing which thing can be confusing, most definitely. The only reason I checked Tomlinson for the aforementioned content that I didn't find is because - plausibly - a discussion between myself and WL and the then-MoWAA (Kaboom, maybe?) and I think the then-MoFA (Brun?) could have happened there about the WA Spam Accords. If I am being told that there was a conversation about repealing it, and I can't find it anywhere I have WAD-related access to (see: EAAC), Tomlinson seemed like the next most logical place for that discussion to have happened. Writinglegend, I'll reiterate this again - I'm sorry if you feel that I unfairly targeted you in what you obviously view as a "hit piece." I didn't view it that way at the time, but I will admit to being emotional and frustrated with how I was being expected to take all of the blame for the bungling of the WA Spam Accords when I felt that there was plenty of blame to share as a result of poor communication. I will reiterate that I did not do "research for my hit piece," but rather that I did research to figure out if I had completely forgotten about about a conversation that I was being told that the interested parties had that I couldn't recall. The primary reason I included it in the article was regarding Item #4 in the list of complaints that I had. I have, in my view, legitimate reasons to have access to Tomlinson as Supreme Chancellor. If you (or a current or future President) disagree, we can have a discussion about that. However, I don't believe that it was "wrong" for me to check Tomlinson or the EAAC to see if the aforementioned conversation that I couldn't recall happened. I also don't believe it was "unethical" to release a rebuttal of blame that was being shifted my way by disclosing what had not happened. As others have alluded to here, leaking information as an "unnamed source" has happened before from protected areas, so I would even argue that it's not really "breaking tradition either." If this was still a concern for you, 6 months later, I wish you had come to me to discuss it further. When we talked about things prior to the apology that I had posted (linked above), I considered the matter resolved, and I didn't realize there were further ill will regarding the post on your side. Again, I apologize for whatever difficulties - mentally, physically, emotionally, etc. - that my post may have caused for you. I don't believe that I've misused the Office of the Supreme Chancellors - then or now. However, if there are things that I have done or said that you feel have crossed a line, I encourage you (or others) to air them in public so that we can have a frank discussion about them, rather than whispered conversations that do our community more harm than good. |
|
![]() ![]() Europeian Awards Nation Details UN/WA Resolutions I've Passed Quotes
| ||
| off | Quote | |
| Lethen | May 31 2017, 03:48 AM Post #25 | |
|
Remember when I was famous? Neither do I.
![]()
|
I believe members of the EAAC or those "in the know" have, in the past, rightly called out various Presidents for severely under-utilizing or entirely neglecting the EAAC while making (perceived) inappropriate and foolish Foreign Affairs decisions through private 1-on-1 conversations on Discord with a few select ministers and stakeholders (e.g. someone like Anumia). Those members were never attacked for it, though they were not breaching any sort of disclosure laws and the comparison is not entirely analogous between the EAAC and the OSC. All that being said, though: if in my role as either admin or SC, I became privy to an unauthorized government server on Discord that did not meet various legal requirements, I would very quickly pass this information onto those that need to know to address it (e.g. the AG/the Courts, the other admins to enforce compliance, etc.). Again, though, not entirely analogous. My intent there would not be to get the President and his complicit Ministers in hot water politically. They would though; I have a hard time thinking the proverbial story would not break. |
|
|
me, basically (click) A letter to a friend By the Prophetical Blessing of Nethel, Supreme Chancellor of the Republic of Europeia and the states within, Destined Overseer of His rightful yet forgotten realms of Estalcia and Old Europe and Crystal Falls, Defender of the Faith and New Jersey, and Heir to the concept of Sarcasm | ||
| on | Quote | |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | ||
| « Previous Topic · E-News Network · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2

.














































