Southern Journal - Issue XXVII: PM Powers, Missing Cabinet

[Kringalia]

To play devil's advocate (my favorite thing in NS, regardless of side), if he did that, wouldn't it be even more true to the principles of TSP to give him a trial - if he's guilty, then it proves how effect TSP's democractic system is. And if he's not - well...then isn't he not guilty?

Also, just out of curiosity, what is the margin of vote the Cabinet needed to pass this removal legally (is it 2/3, majority, unanimous, etc?) and if it isn't unanimous, what was the for/against number (I'm not asking for names, I'm just wondering the stats of it)

The statement said it was unanimous. It only required a majority.

Correct.

@Cerian: the thing is that this wasn't a judicial matter. We deemed him to be a threat to regional security based on his past actions, his apparent willingness to commit those same actions again, and his general attitude towards the legality of vote importation and diversity of political opinions in the region. We saw an individual that refused to understand that in a democracy he can't unilaterally decide what is better for the region.

He is still a resident, and is fully entitled to self-defense in a court of law, as per our Bill of Rights. He can also appeal the decision to our Assembly. So this is by no means an attempt to avoid the judiciary, because that would be both impossible and contrary to our Charter.

[Southern Journal]

Belschaft Appeals his Removal; Tsunamy Releases Statement

Belschaft has appealed to the Assembly his citizenship removal, and posted logs of a conversation between him and Delegate Tsunamy, discussing the state of the region and the former's intention of launching Operation Brave Toaster. In the logs, Belschaft insists the objective of the conspiracy should be to have the Cabinet remove the citizenship of Unibot and Glen Rhodes, arguing that they are "cancer" and an "existential threat" to the South Pacific. Belschaft also indicated about his stated objective, that "[he] would prefer legal, but if we have no choice I would reluctantly do it illegally tbh".

Seconds before, Tsunamy had posted a statement of his own, defending the Cabinet's decision and saying that Belschaft had approached him to have certain members of the government banned, these members later revealed as Unibot and Glen Rhodes. He then added that, while the decision to remove his citizenship was difficult, events and circumstances were such that the action became necessary. So far he has received support from multiple citizens, who have expressed their belief that his intentions are sincere.

The Assembly will soon have to vote on whether to ratify or overturn the Cabinet's decision. A 75% supermajority is required to overturn.

[Aksel Jakobsen]

(Image)

Belschaft Appeals his Removal; Tsunamy Releases Statement

Belschaft has appealed to the Assembly his citizenship removal, and posted logs of a conversation between him and Delegate Tsunamy, discussing the state of the region and the former's intention of launching Operation Brave Toaster. In the logs, Belschaft insists the objective of the conspiracy should be to have the Cabinet remove the citizenship of Unibot and Glen Rhodes, arguing that they are "cancer" and an "existential threat" to the South Pacific. Belschaft also indicated about his stated objective, that "[he] would prefer legal, but if we have no choice I would reluctantly do it illegally tbh".

Seconds before, Tsunamy had posted a statement of his own, defending the Cabinet's decision and saying that Belschaft had approached him to have certain members of the government banned, these members later revealed as Unibot and Glen Rhodes. He then added that, while the decision to remove his citizenship was difficult, events and circumstances were such that the action became necessary. So far he has received support from multiple citizens, who have expressed their belief that his intentions are sincere.

The Assembly will soon have to vote on whether to ratify or overturn the Cabinet's decision. A 75% supermajority is required to overturn.

Interesting article.

[Zaolat]

The statement said it was unanimous. It only required a majority.

Correct.

@Cerian: the thing is that this wasn't a judicial matter. We deemed him to be a threat to regional security based on his past actions, his apparent willingness to commit those same actions again, and his general attitude towards the legality of vote importation and diversity of political opinions in the region. We saw an individual that refused to understand that in a democracy he can't unilaterally decide what is better for the region.

Huh, but yet you do nothing about Unibot? Shame.

[KaelThas Quilor]

The statement said it was unanimous. It only required a majority.

Correct.

@Cerian: the thing is that this wasn't a judicial matter. We deemed him to be a threat to regional security based on his past actions, his apparent willingness to commit those same actions again, and his general attitude towards the legality of vote importation and diversity of political opinions in the region. We saw an individual that refused to understand that in a democracy he can't unilaterally decide what is better for the region.

He is still a resident, and is fully entitled to self-defense in a court of law, as per our Bill of Rights. He can also appeal the decision to our Assembly. So this is by no means an attempt to avoid the judiciary, because that would be both impossible and contrary to our Charter.

Mkay. And sorry, must have missed the bit where it had said it was unaninmous.

[Kringalia]

Correct.

@Cerian: the thing is that this wasn't a judicial matter. We deemed him to be a threat to regional security based on his past actions, his apparent willingness to commit those same actions again, and his general attitude towards the legality of vote importation and diversity of political opinions in the region. We saw an individual that refused to understand that in a democracy he can't unilaterally decide what is better for the region.

Huh, but yet you do nothing about Unibot? Shame.

Unibot has not been caught trying to import votes, trying to force officials to ban his political enemies, outright saying that he would do it illegally if necessary, and then denying that he did any wrongdoing at all.

If you have any such proof, I'm sure we would welcome it.

Mkay. And sorry, must have missed the bit where it had said it was unaninmous.

No worries. It was quite a long statement.

[Southern Journal]

Controversial Clauses on Spiritus Treaty
by Kris Montresor

The Assembly debating the Spiritus Treaty

Recently the Foreign Ministers of the South Pacific and Spiritus submitted to their respective legislatures the draft of a treaty between the two regions. While the debate in the South Pacific is being held in a citizens-only area, meaning the Southern Journal is unable to discuss its contents, the Spiritan Regional Assembly has been debating the proposal openly.

In Spiritus the draft has received support from Founder Tim Stark and from legislators, Representative Cormac Stark has raised some issues with the wording of certain clauses. Those clauses include the mention by name of the current heads of state of both regions within the text of the treaty, a requirement that the South Pacific and Spiritus hold war games in the Warzones, a roleplay clause regulating trade between both regions, and a sunset clause that would force a review of the treaty every twelve months.

While Spiritan Foreign Minister Rogamark has defended the aforementioned clauses, the disagreement continues, pending consideration by further members of the Regional Assembly. It is presumed similar issues have been raised in the Assembly of the South Pacific.

We will expand this story when more information is available.

[Cormac Stark]

I wouldn't say the clauses are overly controversial, and I personally don't appreciate the wording that makes it sound like I'm causing controversy and problems when I'm just suggesting revisions. That is, y'know, my job.

I wasn't even opposing the treaty. Emphasis on wasn't.

[Kringalia]

Personally I would have focused on the TSP debate, which shows the "controversial" part in much more detail, but I can't make reference to specific details of discussions in private areas, so that wasn't an option.

What would would you use instead of controversial?

[Cormac Stark]

Personally I would have focused on the TSP debate, which shows the "controversial" part in much more detail, but I can't make reference to specific details of discussions in private areas, so that wasn't an option.

What would would you use instead of controversial?

I'm not sure, but suggesting revisions to clauses that I saw as poorly worded while saying more than once that I supported the treaty in principle doesn't strike me as controversial.

No idea what's happening in TSP's Assembly, but the article gave the definite impression that the controversy was being caused in and by Spiritus, and me specifically. Meanwhile, the only actual controversy has been this article as it has already flipped at least one vote in Spiritus from likely Aye to definitely Nay. Congratulations.

[LibLib Puppet State]

Meanwhile, the only actual controversy has been this article as it has already flipped at least one vote in Spiritus from likely Aye to definitely Nay. Congratulations.

Yeah. Your vote...

[Cormac Stark]

Meanwhile, the only actual controversy has been this article as it has already flipped at least one vote in Spiritus from likely Aye to definitely Nay. Congratulations.

Yeah. Your vote...

Yes, that would be the one vote to which I was referring...

[Glen-Rhodes]

@Cormac: I can assure that nobody has even mentioned you by name. The controversial parts, though, are largely the same and for the same reasons you've mentioned.

It's nothing that can't be fixed. In fact, most of the issues are in clauses TSP put forth.

(Although it's a private discussion, I assume I can share my own thoughts.)

[Joshua Ravenclaw]

Speaking as Joshua Ravenclaw: He's using controversial, Cormac because he's not gotten his way over several things lately and has decided to use the Southern Journal to see how many buttons he can press. Because, as standard procedure I've posted the treaty inside the Private Halls of the Assembly, he can't comment publicly about it, nor can be comment on any other places in TSP where the treaty text drafts have been shared - whereas the Spiritus RA main section is public and doesn't appear to have laws on reporting from it.

He is trying in short, to cause as much hot air as possible, and knows if he riles you up enough, you'll do his job for him and kill the treaty on Spiritus' side which goes nicely into his agenda this term of obstructing me as much as possible.

Speaking as Eagleswing, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the South Pacific: I'll state for the record here, that the treaty presented is a highly modified and adapted draft of something I wrote for Equilism and WZE, taking out the protectorate clauses and re-writing everything to fit a treaty of friendship, mutual defence and cooperation. It included a renewal clause, which I still believe is a good idea and it was one the delegation from Spiritus agreed on. Disagreement from the respective legislatures has inspired the delegation from both regions to decide to re-convene and discuss suggested amendments to the "controversial clauses".

I have to state for the record as well, that Kringalia and his Southern Journal are not indicative of the majority opinion of the Government of the South Pacific and I apologise of any Legislators from Spiritus have felt unfairly targeted by this publication. Delegate Tsunamy and the majority government of TSP do not agree with such behaviour from the MoRA's regional newspaper.

[Cormac Stark]

Speaking as Joshua Ravenclaw: He's using controversial, Cormac because he's not gotten his way over several things lately and has decided to use the Southern Journal to see how many buttons he can press. Because, as standard procedure I've posted the treaty inside the Private Halls of the Assembly, he can't comment publicly about it, nor can be comment on any other places in TSP where the treaty text drafts have been shared - whereas the Spiritus RA main section is public and doesn't appear to have laws on reporting from it.

He is trying in short, to cause as much hot air as possible, and knows if he riles you up enough, you'll do his job for him and kill the treaty on Spiritus' side which goes nicely into his agenda this term of obstructing me as much as possible.

I see. In this case, I will reconsider how I'm voting.

[Solorni]

What is the point of discussing controversies when we don't know what the controversy is? This just feels like a way for people who know what it is to bicker about it in public. It feels like the episode of Seinfeld where they are discussing the "masters of their domain".

[Ambrella]

I think REDACTED about REDACTED but maybe if we make some changes like REDACTED everyone will be happy?

[Vojislav]

What is the point of discussing controversies when we don't know what the controversy is? This just feels like a way for people who know what it is to bicker about it in public. It feels like the episode of Seinfeld where they are discussing the "masters of their domain".

You don't know what it is to be the master of your own domain?

I'm the master of my own domain.

[Drop Your Pants]

What is the point of discussing controversies when we don't know what the controversy is? This just feels like a way for people who know what it is to bicker about it in public. It feels like the episode of Seinfeld where they are discussing the "masters of their domain".

Its just another attempt at a "Lets rage at Cormac". I don't think the writer was expecting people to be so level headed.

[Belschaft]

The only thing controversial about the proposed Spiritus-TSP treaty is the attempt of TSP's MoRA to circumnavigate his own government and TSP's MoFA by using this "paper" to try and sink the treaty.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If Kris had written glowingly about the treaty, basically lying about the debate occurring and the mounting opposition to its current language, none of you would be accusing him of using the Southern Journal as a soap box.

The fact is Raven included several non-standard clauses into the treaty, including a clause legally requiring TSP to raid, and he got pissy about people criticizing it. Like he has so many times before. (I've never seen somebody with such disdain for TSP continue to remain in political power. Raven's threatened to resign practically once a month.) There would have been no "controversy" if Raven had simply taken the Assembly's concerns and revised the language with Spiritus, rather than publicly insult a fellow Cabinet member and chastise the Assembly for disagreeing with him.

[Todd McCloud]

I'm sorry that he's been ruining your TSP for you.

[the Imperial Crown]

If Kris had written glowingly about the treaty, basically lying about the debate occurring and the mounting opposition to its current language, none of you would be accusing him of using the Southern Journal as a soap box.

The fact is Raven included several non-standard clauses into the treaty, including a clause legally requiring TSP to raid, and he got pissy about people criticizing it. Like he has so many times before. (I've never seen somebody with such disdain for TSP continue to remain in political power. Raven's threatened to resign practically once a month.) There would have been no "controversy" if Raven had simply taken the Assembly's concerns and revised the language with Spiritus, rather than publicly insult a fellow Cabinet member and chastise the Assembly for disagreeing with him.

Well I'm sorry Glen. I forgot TSP was a defender region... wait, it's not. We have how many of defenders in the military who actively do anything? I can tell you we have at least one defender who sits on the sideline moaning loudly. TSP is not a defender region, so kindly stop trying to force your view of how the region should be on those who do not agree.

Now had you bothered to say pay attention Glen, which I understand is very, very hard thing for you at times, you would have been aware that I have said at least once in cabinet and in the assembly that I've been in contact with Spiritus to look at amendments based on feedback. I've also said several times that the clauses people have questioned were my work, and based on a template; I've never denied being behind them - read up in this thread to see one comment on them. But now that would be using logic and your ability to read, which I understand with you being so busy on cementing your own influence you might overlook.

Now, speaking of cementing influence, I am no longer inclined to financially support your motion to move TSP to your server at the expense of Alexandria - which I did in fact have open registering using your affiliates link as I read the above post. So, looks like you will be paying May 2016 rather than August 2016 unless someone else swoops in to save the day, although I'll now urging TSP to decide against moving to your server and seeking another option with someone who is clearly less partisan than yourself.

I've also made it clear btw that I'm not seeking re-election (multiple times. I've said I'll be a one term Minister, pretty sure I said that in my bloody platform!), that this term has been tiring, tedious and reminded me why I wanted a quieter NationStates existence. When the "casual" pacific becomes more stressful than Osiris, something is wrong. It's probably a result from being in cabinet with at least one person who holds completely and utterly opposite political views to me and having to fight them every step of the way.

I for one have sympathy for the various non-defender allied regions who will have to without a doubt put up with you next month. Time for another year of Glen's special systematic neglect for everything non-defender eh? I can't see Europeia, The North Pacific or Balder accepting that and I hope the South Pacific opens their eyes and realises the damage you will do to their foreign policy and decides against electing you. Why don't you run for Vice-Delegate again? I hear that went so well for you last time...

http://i.gyazo.com/5d659a9c0939707e49ab1d46f3d22c45.png

[Escade]

Gentlemen,

This is probably best suited to the private threads.

I adore Kris and even though at times I strong disagree with him and he upsets me, he tries to be an exceptionally impartial individual. It irks me when he doesn't treat me special because of our close working relationship in the past but it's also a positive point for him because he really does try to be fair and just to all regardless.

GR, I understand your point of view. No treaty should be made that denigrates our ally especially because we have a history of treaties that do not include language that could be termed as "neutering the bull."

Raven, it's hard to see you like this. Please take a step back and think about all the positive things you have done and continue to do so. Your love for Osiris is clear and visible. I think it's very difficult to love two regions as I should know, nothing comes before TSP to me regardless of how wonderful it may seem.

As for your UCR, Alexandria, some of my thoughts as a (former?) colleague:
The feeder\sinkers are where most people (whom I know) are active and there's a real reason for it (power). UCRs like your could be successful depending on a few things:
1. You're stated position as a neutral means that you could technically have Alexandria be a "Safe Zone." Maybe for mediation? Maybe for hosting the World's Fair so that it's archived in one place and easily accessible? Maybe for some totally different symposium?
2. I can see it connecting to Osiris and its player base (maybe to TSP as a lesser degree but perhaps you can recruit in TSP)
3. Brand identity, what does Alexandria stand for? What does it offer that no other place does?
4. For example, is it a place where people can learn about and engage in the fine arts of politics? Or is it a place where people who are tired of politics can find respite (although it seems few can resist the siren call of getting back into the midst of things).

All of the FA issues in TSP make me think about that position and wonder if I should consider it.

[the Imperial Crown]

Do me a favour? Shut up about my UCR and look at other things I've said. If you had bothered to pay attention beyond making assumptions you would have realised that I had offered to use Glen's referral link to DigitalOcean when I signed Alexandria up to new webhosting on that service. Doing so, would give him $25 in credit to be used for The South Pacific when it transfers over once I've paid for my hosting, which will pay for five months hosting for them and I felt that being a member of TSP and in a position where I could help, I had a duty to do so. That duty does not extend to being attacked in GP, so I'm extending the courtesy back and I'll not bother wasting my time.

As for Alexandria - I'll remind you that once upon a time, you had a standing invitation to it.

1. You're stated position as a neutral means that you could technically have Alexandria be a "Safe Zone." Maybe for mediation? Maybe for hosting the World's Fair so that it's archived in one place and easily accessible? Maybe for some totally different symposium?

Alexandria is Alexandria.

2. I can see it connecting to Osiris and its player base (maybe to TSP as a lesser degree but perhaps you can recruit in TSP).

I think you'll find Osiris is not the dominant player base. It does have a rather large count of GCR delegates. I do not want to recruit in TSP - beyond what we do with stamps anyway.

Ignoring number 3 and 4.