INS Reports: Trouble in TS-Paradise for new delegate Escade

[Hyanygo]

You're missing the point on collective responsibility and quite frankly, I'm confused that you've missed it Unibot. You intimately know how the Westminster system works and furthermore, you know the honourable thing for G-R to do is to resign. To depart from the convention of collective responsibility requires either:
a) Permission from the chairman of the committee to depart (the premier executive committee is called the "Cabinet"); or
b) Resignation.

The convention has clear advantages in that it makes relations between governments simpler: for instance, it is absolutely clear what TSP means when they speak. This clarity is, I assume, of central importance to TSP.

I've been accommodating of your ventures Uni, but this willful sidestepping of a subject you are well versed in really takes the biscuit.

To end, here's a quote from Bagehot's "The English Constitution": "It is said that at the end of the Cabinet which agreed to propose a fixed duty on corn, Lord Melbourne put his back to the door and said, "Now is it to lower the price of corn or isn't it? It is not much matter which we say, but mind, we must all say THE SAME.""

[Evil Wolf]

Furthermore, I'm recalling a situation where a supermajority of Eluvatar's Cabinet wanted to pursue a motion to identify the region as a Defender Region and you went public about it to address to The Assembly.

Yes, Unibot, I recall your attempt to make TNP a Defender region against the wishes of the Regional Assembly by secretly trying to side step the RA completely and decreeing the region to be Defender without even a single vote.

It was nothing more than an outright attempt to dictate to the region our allegiances against the wishes of the majority of the population. Fortunately, the attempted was exposed by McMaster and a public dialogue occurred, in which TNP voted to stay neutral and allowed the NPA the right to either raid or defender within a given set of rules.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You're missing the point on collective responsibility and quite frankly, I'm confused that you've missed it Unibot. You intimately know how the Westminster system works...

As somebody who also knows how the Westminster system works, I can tell you with certainty that TSP's government doesn't follow the Westminster system. Cabinet members are elected individually upon their own platforms, and when reelection comes around, Cabinet members are individually responsible for how well they achieved their platform promises. It's possible, and has happened before, for the Cabinet to composed of people who ran on opposing platforms.

In the Westminster system, Cabinet members are appointed by the Prime Minister and are responsible for pursuing the agenda of the Prime Minister. Cabinet collective responsibility stems from loyalty to the Prime Minister, not from some law of democracy that government must be united. Nobody in the Cabinet freaked out because I somehow harmed the region. They freaked out because they felt I was disloyal. It's a simple as that. We need to get our Cabinet under control, because it's quickly becoming a centralized pool of authority soon to surpass the Assembly in power and influence.

[Unibot III]

You're missing the point on collective responsibility and quite frankly, I'm confused that you've missed it Unibot. You intimately know how the Westminster system works...

As somebody who also knows how the Westminster system works, I can tell you with certainty that TSP's government doesn't follow the Westminster system. Cabinet members are elected individually upon their own platforms, and when reelection comes around, Cabinet members are individually responsible for how well they achieved their platform promises. It's possible, and has happened before, for the Cabinet to composed of people who ran on opposing platforms.

In the Westminster system, Cabinet members are appointed by the Prime Minister and are responsible for pursuing the agenda of the Prime Minister. Cabinet collective responsibility stems from loyalty to the Prime Minister, not from some law of democracy that government must be united. Nobody in the Cabinet freaked out because I somehow harmed the region. They freaked out because they felt I was disloyal. It's a simple as that. We need to get our Cabinet under control, because it's quickly becoming a centralized pool of authority soon to surpass the Assembly in power and influence.

Exactly. Hyanygo, I know the Westminster System and I know The South Pacific does not follow it: the speaker is an elected official in The South Pacific with his own responsibilities to the electorate.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

As somebody who also knows how the Westminster system works, I can tell you with certainty that TSP's government doesn't follow the Westminster system. Cabinet members are elected individually upon their own platforms, and when reelection comes around, Cabinet members are individually responsible for how well they achieved their platform promises. It's possible, and has happened before, for the Cabinet to composed of people who ran on opposing platforms.

In the Westminster system, Cabinet members are appointed by the Prime Minister and are responsible for pursuing the agenda of the Prime Minister. Cabinet collective responsibility stems from loyalty to the Prime Minister, not from some law of democracy that government must be united. Nobody in the Cabinet freaked out because I somehow harmed the region. They freaked out because they felt I was disloyal. It's a simple as that. We need to get our Cabinet under control, because it's quickly becoming a centralized pool of authority soon to surpass the Assembly in power and influence.

Exactly. Hyanygo, I know the Westminster System and I know The South Pacific does not follow it: the speaker is an elected official in The South Pacific with his own responsibilities to the electorate.

Ours is not a perfect replication of the Westminster system, nor is it intended to be so, but it does contain elements of it. Cabinet Collective Responsibility is one, the supremacy of the legislature is another.

[Hyanygo]

As somebody who also knows how the Westminster system works, I can tell you with certainty that TSP's government doesn't follow the Westminster system. Cabinet members are elected individually upon their own platforms, and when reelection comes around, Cabinet members are individually responsible for how well they achieved their platform promises. It's possible, and has happened before, for the Cabinet to composed of people who ran on opposing platforms.

In the Westminster system, Cabinet members are appointed by the Prime Minister and are responsible for pursuing the agenda of the Prime Minister. Cabinet collective responsibility stems from loyalty to the Prime Minister, not from some law of democracy that government must be united. Nobody in the Cabinet freaked out because I somehow harmed the region. They freaked out because they felt I was disloyal. It's a simple as that. We need to get our Cabinet under control, because it's quickly becoming a centralized pool of authority soon to surpass the Assembly in power and influence.

Exactly. Hyanygo, I know the Westminster System and I know The South Pacific does not follow it: the speaker is an elected official in The South Pacific with his own responsibilities to the electorate.

That has little, if no bearing on the convention of collective responsibility. And both you and G-R are, I daresay, intentionally misleading readers.

G-R's disloyalty is a breach a convention. It is not a law of democracy, it is peculiar to the Cabinet system. Collective responsibility does not originate from a desire to be loyal to the Prime Minister --- that is a horrific warping of the convention. It is designed to minimize political embarrassment for the ministers themselves. It stems from a sense of loyalty to all.

It is true that TSP does not employ the Westminster system to its core (it would require the singular genius of legislative and executive fusion), but that was never my point. I'm relying on the fact that you conversant in the convention of Cabinet collective responsibility (G-R waded into individual ministerial responsibility which is a related, but different beast). Either you are not familiar with it, or you are deliberately misleading.

I sincerely hope it is the former, Unibot. This is not something either one of you can win. It is poor form and those with an inkling of convention can see that clearly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That has little, if no bearing on the convention of collective responsibility. And both you and G-R are, I daresay, intentionally misleading readers.

Of course it has bearing. You're simply not willing to listen without preconceived biases.

Cabinet collective responsibility is not a solid convention in TSP. Cabinet members have spoken out before. It's a scandal when the other Cabinet members want to make it a scandal. It was made a scandal here because the Cabinet is unfortunately partially composed of people who have held power in TSP for a very long time, and thus aren't forgiving of any tests of their authority. I don't know how many times I was told that I was being punished because I tried to usurp Hileville's authority as MoFA.

[Kringalia]

That has little, if no bearing on the convention of collective responsibility. And both you and G-R are, I daresay, intentionally misleading readers.

Of course it has bearing. You're simply not willing to listen without preconceived biases.

Cabinet collective responsibility is not a solid convention in TSP. Cabinet members have spoken out before. It's a scandal when the other Cabinet members want to make it a scandal. It was made a scandal here because the Cabinet is unfortunately partially composed of people who have held power in TSP for a very long time, and thus aren't forgiving of any tests of their authority. I don't know how many times I was told that I was being punished because I tried to usurp Hileville's authority as MoFA.

If disagreeing with someone is all it takes to accuse them of not being willing to listen, then this is some sick world we are living in Glen.

You interfered with Hileville's duties when you released a foreign policy statement as Chair of the Assembly. That is just a plain fact. It's a scandal because you broke precedent and weakened the collective Cabinet position with respect to Osiris. You disagreeing with our opinion on what you did doesn't give you the right to accuse TSPers, who by the way voted for you in the latest election, of being control freaks and ruling the region.

[Tim-Opolis]

Furthermore, I'm recalling a situation where a supermajority of Eluvatar's Cabinet wanted to pursue a motion to identify the region as a Defender Region and you went public about it to address to The Assembly.

Yes, Unibot, I recall your attempt to make TNP a Defender region against the wishes of the Regional Assembly by secretly trying to side step the RA completely and decreeing the region to be Defender without even a single vote.

It was nothing more than an outright attempt to dictate to the region our allegiances against the wishes of the majority of the population. Fortunately, the attempted was exposed by McMaster and a public dialogue occurred, in which TNP voted to stay neutral and allowed the NPA the right to either raid or defender within a given set of rules.

I'm a Defender, and would love to see TNP Defender, but even I agree with Wolf on this one Uni.

[Unibot III]

Yes, Unibot, I recall your attempt to make TNP a Defender region against the wishes of the Regional Assembly by secretly trying to side step the RA completely and decreeing the region to be Defender without even a single vote.

It was nothing more than an outright attempt to dictate to the region our allegiances against the wishes of the majority of the population. Fortunately, the attempted was exposed by McMaster and a public dialogue occurred, in which TNP voted to stay neutral and allowed the NPA the right to either raid or defender within a given set of rules.

I'm a Defender, and would love to see TNP Defender, but even I agree with Wolf on this one Uni.

Only difference between the two situations is neutrals are pleased with the actions of McMasterdonia there and not pleased with the actions of Glen-Rhodes here. Why? Ideological bias and personal interests.

[Ikand]

So, I don't follow the metagamey stuff... why exactly is it a big deal for someone from TSP's cabinet to have a differing view than the general consensus? Isn't GR entitled to voice his own opinions?

Explain it to me like I'm a five year old.

[Ajsihaippaww]

So, I don't follow the metagamey stuff... why exactly is it a big deal for someone from TSP's cabinet to have a differing view than the general consensus? Isn't GR entitled to voice his own opinions?

Explain it to me like I'm a five year old.

GR is entitled to voice his opinion, but he is also entitled to be removed from office if people don't like him voicing his opinion.

[Kringalia]

So, I don't follow the metagamey stuff... why exactly is it a big deal for someone from TSP's cabinet to have a differing view than the general consensus? Isn't GR entitled to voice his own opinions?

Explain it to me like I'm a five year old.

Basically it's his right to an opinion vs him giving his opinion in his official capacity as a government minister in conflict with the course of action we had already agreed upon, considering the precedent of the Cabinet acting with collective responsibility when adopting policy.

[McMasterdonia]

I'm a Defender, and would love to see TNP Defender, but even I agree with Wolf on this one Uni.

Only difference between the two situations is neutrals are pleased with the actions of McMasterdonia there and not pleased with the actions of Glen-Rhodes here. Why? Ideological bias and personal interests.

Actually if I recall there were two situations.. There was the one where the cabinet agreed to propose an NPA doctrine (formerly called the "restore honour" proposal) before the regional assembly. Which we did put before the regional assembly. A proposal that you attempted to force me to introduce as I had the most political capital on the subject, but the author of the proposal Scandigrad (then deputy Minister) introduced it as he had requested to do so. It wasn't well received and the Deputy Minister and I made amendments to it as necessary in order to get it passed. I contributed to that debate productively, and the Delegate was not completely satisfied with the final result, but it was a compromise that would pass the assembly and he accepted that.

I did not ever make a statement that slammed the Delegate's policy as Glen Rhodes did. I did however speak out against how he dealt with cabinet and some of the behavior's he allowed to continue and even flourish in that setting, especially from you.

As the Regional Assembly is the only body that can legislate in the region, the debate there was different to the cabinet one. The area was specific to my responsibilities at the time - never once did I release statements or attempt to undermine the Delegate on matters that were not my responsibility - such as Foreign Affairs, World Assembly affairs or anything of the sort. That is what you did. There was enough undermining and underhanded tactics by you and I did not intend to contribute to them.

Your own inappropriate remarks and insults often did far more damage to your own position that I ever did. Your own supporters acknowledged that. Often enough though thought I was behind something before I had even heard of the proposal or incident: i.e. WA voting regulations.

Then there was the time that you spoke to Wordy of TITO about using underhanded tactics to bring the region to defenderdom. I did what I thought was right in that case, as Chair of the Security Council. No vote was held on that matter by cabinet or the SC, but there needed to be some RA oversight for your actions and the Delegate at the time had established that precedent with the release of logs relating to Blue Wolf II, where it is deemed to be a matter of regional security (even if the threat is not imminent).

In a cabinet scenario, where the individuals responsibilities are specific, such as Glen Rhodes - he should not have attempted to undermine the Delegate and the cabinet's vote on a foreign policy matter. Especially when there was no foul play by any member of the region. Here you are, jumping on the bandwagon and trying to legitimize your own actions in various regions based on this. Absolute nonsense. If the cabinet has a strong history of cabinet solidarity and collective responsibility, then GR should not have spoke out in an official capacity against it. If the cabinet had made a decision that you agreed with, you would be slamming the person for the leak.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If disagreeing with someone is all it takes to accuse them of not being willing to listen, then this is some sick world we are living in Glen.

Hyanygo isn't willing to listen not because they disagree with me, but because what I said is just irrefutable. TSP does not follow a pure Westminster system. The Cabinet is not appointed by a prime minister. It is elected individually. Cabinet collective responsibility is not anticipated nor really supported by our governing structure. It's a custom selectively enforced to maintain strict loyalty to the Delegate.

You interfered with Hileville's duties when you released a foreign policy statement as Chair of the Assembly. That is just a plain fact.

It is not "plain fact." My statement did not have any affect on TSP's relationship with Osiris. It does not invalidate the decision of the Cabinet. It did not weaken Hileville's duties of writing foreign updates and posting them on forums, which is all the MoFA does by themselves. That last thing is really important, here, because you guys are rewriting TSP's governing system. The MoFA does not create foreign policy.

It's a scandal because you broke precedent and weakened the collective Cabinet position with respect to Osiris. You disagreeing with our opinion on what you did doesn't give you the right to accuse TSPers, who by the way voted for you in the latest election, of being control freaks and ruling the region.

Kris, let's not mince words and bullshit people here. You guys didn't just express an opinion. My access to the Cabinet forum was removed right after I made my post. The first thing I encountered when I logged onto the TSP IRC was Belschaft telling me had the urge to purge me from the region. Hileville lodged a recall, which other Cabinet members supported. The rest of you blocked Escade in every attempt to fix the situation, if my discussions with her are accurate. You guys didn't express opinions. You all acted in a very concerted effort to remove me from the Cabinet because I had the gall to publicly disagree with you.

That is unhealthy behavior for the Cabinet, and none of you really think you did anything wrong. That's why I have such a low opinion of this current Cabinet when it comes to the centralization of authority. I think you and Escade ran on a good platform and I want to see it progress, but specifically the way you guys conduct the business of the Cabinet leaves a lot to be desired.

In a cabinet scenario, where the individuals responsibilities are specific, such as Glen Rhodes - he should not have attempted to undermine the Delegate and the cabinet's vote on a foreign policy matter.

This is a misunderstanding of TSP's governing structure. The Cabinet as whole determines Cabinet policy, not individual Cabinet members. Furthermore, the Chair of the Assembly does not have a specific portfolio.

If the cabinet has a strong history of cabinet solidarity and collective responsibility, then GR should not have spoke out in an official capacity against it.

The "strong history" is not as strong as some make it out to be. Most decisions made by the Cabinet are almost unanimous, and when they aren't, there isn't a lot of real, existential disagreement among the members. When there is, we've seen people speak out. This isn't even the first time this year that Cabinet members disagreed publicly with each other and with Cabinet decisions. The only remarkable thing I did was make a post and append my title to it, and perhaps be the sole dissenter.

What's interesting is that Escade and I had a long discussion about dissent, and we negotiated a way for Cabinet members to respectfully dissent from a decision much the same way as the US Supreme Court handles dissent. As I recall -- and I may be mistaken, because the post (along with my original statement) was moved to a hidden forum -- there was support for it from almost everybody but the Cabinet. So the idea of public dissent isn't controversial outside those halls of power. Many of you guys may get the impression from the outside that the whole region is outraged at what I did, but the reality is that we're split at least, and at most many people don't agree with the collective responsibility idea.

[Southern Bellz]

Did you purposely omit the fact where Escade asked to talk to you before you posted the statement? And that I told you before you posted the statement that I felt that the action would be worthy of recall? And most importantly, the only attempt I was following of Escade's to fix the situation was blocked by you resigning hours before the cabinet meeting. The victim card you keep trying to play only works when you omit the multiple times people tried to avoid/fix the issue that was ignored or sabotaged by you.

You are really surprised the rest of the cabinet wasn't happy with your statement, when you spoke out against the cabinet as a cabinet member?

[Kringalia]

You obviously didn't understand correctly whatever it was Escade told you, because at no time was there any "concerted effort" to oust you. We believe once the Cabinet decision is made we all should stand by it, and at the least not sabotage it like you did. Did you really expect us to not criticise your actions? You opened the argument about speaking out when you feel strongly about something. Well we also feel strongly about you doing what you did. That's not a concerted effort, that's people disagreeing with you. Further, if you have the right to post foreign policy statements, then the Minister of Foreign Affairs has more right to influence foreign policy in the region. Don't pretend like the MoFA is just an administrative position because it's not.

Now about our running of the Cabinet, it's been done just like any other Cabinet. The only difference is you released an official statement undermining the official position of the government, which you were not authorised to do. Please do tell how it would look if as MoFA I had used Foreign Updates to publicly disagree with Cabinet decisions?

[Unibot III]

Only difference between the two situations is neutrals are pleased with the actions of McMasterdonia there and not pleased with the actions of Glen-Rhodes here. Why? Ideological bias and personal interests.

Actually if I recall there were two situations.. There was the one where the cabinet agreed to propose an NPA doctrine (formerly called the "restore honour" proposal) before the regional assembly. Which we did put before the regional assembly. A proposal that you attempted to force me to introduce as I had the most political capital on the subject, but the author of the proposal Scandigrad (then deputy Minister) introduced it as he had requested to do so. It wasn't well received and the Deputy Minister and I made amendments to it as necessary in order to get it passed. I contributed to that debate productively, and the Delegate was not completely satisfied with the final result, but it was a compromise that would pass the assembly and he accepted that.

I did not produce the proposal that Scandigrad came up with - I made additions to it. Then you and Abbey Anumia turned it into essentially a "status quo" paper which didn't address anything and put off the decision over the region's ideology.

I did not ever make a statement that slammed the Delegate's policy as Glen Rhodes did. I did however speak out against how he dealt with cabinet and some of the behavior's he allowed to continue and even flourish in that setting, especially from you.

You did speak to the RA angrily that I had "betrayed" the Regional Assembly by pursuing the policy in Cabinet.

As the Regional Assembly is the only body that can legislate in the region, the debate there was different to the cabinet one.

No, actually. It was perfectly legal to pass it as a Cabinet policy as a direction for the NPA.

Your own inappropriate remarks and insults often did far more damage to your own position that I ever did. Your own supporters acknowledged that.

And your fluffy, ambiguous political statements often gained you many political allies who didn't know they were being played like a fiddle. We're different kinds of players.

In a cabinet scenario, where the individuals responsibilities are specific, such as Glen Rhodes - he should not have attempted to undermine the Delegate and the cabinet's vote on a foreign policy matter.

His responsibilities are very specific: to the people. To the legislature.

If the cabinet has a strong history of cabinet solidarity and collective responsibility, then GR should not have spoke out in an official capacity against it.

An appeal to tradition is illogical. If the cabinet had a strong history of shitting in a bucket, he shouldn't have done that either - unless those scatological circumstances are something that appeals to him, in which case, it's not something for you or I to decide for him.

[Evil Wolf]

I did not ever make a statement that slammed the Delegate's policy as Glen Rhodes did. I did however speak out against how he dealt with cabinet and some of the behavior's he allowed to continue and even flourish in that setting, especially from you.

You did speak to the RA angrily that I had "betrayed" the Regional Assembly by pursuing the policy in Cabinet.

As the Regional Assembly is the only body that can legislate in the region, the debate there was different to the cabinet one.

No, actually. It was perfectly legal to pass it as a Cabinet policy as a direction for the NPA.

Legal though it might have been, it was over the objections of the NPA itself and every General in it. Unibot knew that the proposal would never pass the Regional Assembly, so he tried to backdoor it through the Cabinet, against every tradition in TNP regarding the role of the Cabinet, might I add.

Unibot tried to create law without making law and drag TNP back to Defenderism against its will and in chains. The act can be considered nothing short of an attempted political coup and an internal take over attempt by Defenders in general.

[Unibot III]

You did speak to the RA angrily that I had "betrayed" the Regional Assembly by pursuing the policy in Cabinet.



No, actually. It was perfectly legal to pass it as a Cabinet policy as a direction for the NPA.

Legal though it might have been, it was over the objections of the NPA itself and every General in it. Unibot knew that the proposal would never pass the Regional Assembly, so he tried to backdoor it through the Cabinet, against every tradition in TNP regarding the role of the Cabinet, might I add.

Unibot tried to create law without making law and drag TNP back to Defenderism against its will and in chains. The act can be considered nothing short of an attempted political coup and an internal take over attempt by Defenders in general.

What tradition in TNP? Cabinet (with Flemingovia breaking ranks in Cabinet to make a passionate speech against) led by Cathyy decided to pull out of ADN without consulting the RA - the region was left asking why their Minister of External Affairs, Wilkshire "requested" Cathyy to repudiate to the Articles of Alliance. Surely, if "tradition" is all that matters, Cabinet (or one lone minister and a delegate really) could pull TNP back into Defenderdom just as easily at it had repudiated it.

The reality is TNP doesn't worship tradition, it worships law and policy.

[Evil Wolf]

The reality is TNP doesn't worship tradition, it worships law and policy.

Says a person who argued endlessly in TNP that they needed to return to their "Defender roots" because of "tradition". TRADITION!

I guess the "Tradition" argument is only valid when you use it, eh, Unibot?

[Unibot III]

Says a person who argued endlessly in TNP that they needed to return to their "Defender roots" because of "tradition". TRADITION!

I guess the "Tradition" argument is only valid when you use it, eh, Unibot?

No I argued that The North Pacific has lacked a cohesive regional identity and communal purpose or drive since its abandoned its defender tradition, in favor of an ambiguous neutral direction. I think it would be less cohesive identity-wise with The North Pacific's history to pursue an invader vision for The North Pacific.

[Milograd]

The reality is TNP doesn't worship tradition, it worships law and policy.

Says a person who argued endlessly in TNP that they needed to return to their "Defender roots" because of "tradition". TRADITION!

I guess the "Tradition" argument is only valid when you use it, eh, Unibot?

The papa, the papa!

TRADITION!

[Evil Wolf]

Says a person who argued endlessly in TNP that they needed to return to their "Defender roots" because of "tradition". TRADITION!

I guess the "Tradition" argument is only valid when you use it, eh, Unibot?

No I argued that The North Pacific has lacked a cohesive regional identity and communal purpose or drive since its abandoned its defender tradition, in favor of an ambiguous neutral direction. I think it would be less cohesive identity-wise with The North Pacific's history to pursue an invader vision for The North Pacific.

In other words, Unibot argued for TNP to return to it's Defender Roots because TRADITION!

UDL has a history of opposing Feeder governments whenever the natives ideals to not mesh with that of the UDL and Unibot, mostly Unibot, since he's their idealogical figurehead. That was the case in TNP, and it is the case now in TSP.

[Wickedly evil people]

The tradition in TWP is to think Unibot is a cloned Jimmy Swaggert playing NS in his spare time.