Great Brigantia wrote:It doesn't sound like it was unambiguously illegal, depending on the wording of the clause(s) in question. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of Mandate 7 that I can actually access, but if you can provide the wording that would be stellar.
Is this what your defence of the PRL's legitimacy comes to?
Whether or not a wording of a clause allowed someone to vote on removal of 30% of the legislature in a single motion, thereby consciously subverting the constitutional requirement for a 75% supermajority for removing members of the legislature?
Under that approach to the matter, one member could have proposed removing the rest and voted them all out. If NES had done that, would you defend it?
You think that process legitimate?
I do not myself have a copy of the constitution (and neither, as you say, do you, and you are the one who introduced the question of legality into this discussion in that state of ignorance, so it is perfectly reasonable to for me in turn to highlight that the legality of the action was disputed in relation to this point).
It seems very likely to me that, unless the clause was expressly worded to permit voting on removing an unspecified group of members together, the NPO removing 30% of the legislature in a purge was in breach of the requirement for a 75% supermajority for expelling members from the legislature. Regardless, this procedure was an attempt to manipulate the rules and undermined the integrity of the government of Lazarus. It's hardly legitimate.
Great Brigantia wrote:What I do know is that the argument that Feux's actions were legal was accepted by the vast majority of the interregional community, and your arguments against their legality have been rejected time and time again for two years.
Your idea that "the vast majority of the interregional community" have ever put their minds to the this issue, regarding whether voting out members of the Lazarus legislture individually or in bulk was the constitutional procedure, is fanciful. Most people will have never have been aware of the issue.
Great Brigantia wrote:First, Harmoneia is more than just some random defender supporting the NPO for foreign interests. Harmoneia is, as has by now been made clear, a decade-long native of Lazarus and has served as Delegate on five occasions. If you're going to actually accuse her of pursuing foreign interests to the detriment of Lazarus with a straight face, I would hate to play poker with you.
The NPO were perfectly happy to accuse Griffin of this, despite the fact she had been a member of Lazarus for more than half a decade and served multiple terms as delegate (including the longest period recorded in the in-game history). Moreover, Griffin always stridently defended the neutrality of Lazarus, whereas Harmoneia took it defender under the PRL. So despite Griffin's standing in this respect, you have by implication made allegations against her.
Harmoneia's actions at the time were in thrall to Feux and the NPO, despite what even you concede was the dubious character of their behaviour.
Like Harmoneia, DYP was similarly a long-serving Lazarus native. He has just admitted that he was perfectly happy to throw Griffin out for the drama:
Drop Your Pants wrote:Harmoneia and DYP were entirely happy to support the purge of long time Lazarus resident and former Delegate Victoria Griffin when she was purged.
It created drama. Drama is good. Gave us something to write about for a while.
We know that Feux performed the purge for the NPO. DYP has now confirmed what his motivation as a native of Lazarus was.
It is the defender world which clings to the fantasy that the purge was about removing foreign influence - because otherwise their foolishness is exposed.
Great Brigantia wrote:To address the rest of your argument, we first need to establish that the 2013 purge was unambiguously illegal. You have not done that.
This statement is simply an attempt to shut down debate. Legality is not the only factor to the legitimacy of the regime. Insofar as the issue of legality goes, we do not have the wording of the clause (although you have claimed that it was legal without knowing that), but it is clear to me that (unless the clause was worded in a way that expressly allowed groups to be expelled by the vote of the remaining members, which seems unlikely to me), the way that the 75% super-majority requirement was subverted was illegal. It was in any case an indefensible farce perpetrated to legitimise the NPO's interference.
Great Brigantia wrote:I suspect all of that is basically true, but it is irrelevant to whether the events of 2013 constituted a coup d'etat. What is relevant here is whether the PRL is the legal, legitimate government of Lazarus, not what kind of image the NPO wanted to portray.
The relevance is, if what I said was true, that the distance created between the purge and the creation of the PRL was a mirage for PR purposes. If the separation of these events was solely a matter of propaganda, then that means that the creation of the PRL is in turned tied to the NPO's purge.
Your attempt to distinguish these events rests on accepting the NPO's distortions and propaganda about there being no connection between those events.
In fact, the appearance of distance between the events, with Feux standing down as delegate, was, as you have just acknowledged, essentially contrived.
Great Brigantia wrote:It's also entirely possible that Harmoneia, who as we've established is a longtime native of Lazarus and not some foreign defender agent as you're portraying her, thought she was doing what was best for Lazarus.
You are falling over yourself to offer Harmoneia the benefit of the doubt, while denying it to Griffin, despite the fact that no specific evidence was ever presented against Griffin. You portray Griffin in the context of her links to TNI - despite the fact that she never sought to make Lazarus an imperialist region. Why then are Harmoneia's long-standing links to the defender world somehow an irrelevancy, when Harmoneia actually made Lazarus defender?
This treatment is ludicrously inconsistent.
Great Brigantia wrote:Your "long-serving Lazarus delegate with multiple terms" also left Lazarus wallowing in inactivity in order to preserve a neutral ideology that benefited foreign interests, namely your interests and the interests of the user-created region in which Griffin was Founder and Kaiserin at the time, The New Inquisition.
Griffin had no more responsibility for the inactivity than any other member of the Lazarus government, including those who subsequently persecuted her.
The idea that she was part of some plot to keep Lazarus "in inactivity in order to preserve a neutral ideology" is bizarre and unsubstantiated. Lazarus's inactivity was not a conspiracy: many GCRs have had substantial periods of inactivity without this being a result of some sort of plot. She was working to increase Lazarus activity. Now, she may not have been successful, but that is hardly grounds for purging her from the region as a traitor.
Great Brigantia wrote:Please don't pretend that a native of Lazarus could not have reasonably come to the conclusion that removing NES and his imperialist cohort from the region was in the region's best interests.
If reason had anything to do with it, they would have been condemning Feux based on the conversation you yourself revealed before the NPO's Retort.
Yet the people you defend were more than happy to ignore that because it was politically inconvenient. Targeting imperialists was easier.
What "imperialist cohort"? Again, I refer to Apollo, who was removed on the mistaken belief he was in the UIAF when he was not. He simply wasn't part of either the NPO clique or the defender clique, so he was targeted. Likewise, you have failed to refer to any specific evidence on either Griffin or Cerebella.
Great Brigantia wrote:Actually, no, Onder, I don't care if you change your beliefs -- though you should support the PRL, even quite apart from any arguments regarding legitimacy.
On the contrary, you are evidently frustrated that some Independent regions are refusing to change their beliefs to go along with your latest agenda.
Great Brigantia wrote:Even if you don't regard the PRL as legitimate, its restoration is vital to creating the sovereign, liberal, democratic Lazarus that all of you claim to believe is the best course for Feeders and Sinkers. Such a Lazarus will not be created under any other circumstances.
Until the PRL comes to terms with the nature of its creation, there is no reason to believe it respects sovereignty, liberty or democracy.
The future of Lazarus will not be served by endorsing the continuation of the PRL, a creation of the NPO which transformed Lazarus from a neutral democratic monarchy to a Communist defender dictatorship.
Furthermore, as a practical vehicle, the PRL is of little value because it is unlikely to be successful in retaking the region. It's just an illegitimate regime; the values which you claim to promote are undermined by lending any credibility to it. It does not deserve any degree of recognition - and never did.
Great Brigantia wrote:But because restoration of the PRL may also restore a defender Lazarus, and a Lazarus that is an FRA member region, you will not support the PRL's restoration, and you are demonstrating exactly how much you care about Feeder and Sinker sovereignty: Not at all, if a sovereign Feeder or Sinker chooses to also be a defender Feeder or Sinker.
Lazarus never chose to be defender. It was turned into a defender region following an NPO coup and purge in September 2013.
That is an outrage, not something to be protected.
Great Brigantia wrote:Let me ask you this: When and if the NPO comes knocking in Balder or The West Pacific, what possible incentive will the rest of the world have to help you in liberating those regions, if you turn your backs on Lazarus now? You don't care about the
sovereignty of our regions, why should we care about the sovereignty of yours? We can either stand together or we can fall apart. You are currently opting for the latter and it would be in your best interests and the best interests of your allies to reconsider.
This from someone who threatened to coup Balder, Osiris, TWP and TNP a couple of months ago, for their connections with Albion, LKE and TNI.
It is pretty obvious that your concerns are promoting Defender interests; they're nothing to do with any of these high-minded principles you spout.
The reason why the NPO was a threat in Lazarus is because Feux won the delegate election, and under the PRL, ended up as forum root administrator. Placed in that position, any organisation or entity can be a threat. Denying the truth about the PRL does nothing to stop the NPO elsewhere.
Great Brigantia wrote:In any event, I don't care if you change your beliefs. I would prefer that you be quiet, though. Neutrality is not claiming to support neither side but intentionally, vocally, and frequently doing everything you can to undermine one side to benefit the other. We all know that you, NES, Rachel, and Belschaft have not regarded the PRL as legitimate and we've known it since 2013. Repeating it daily and at any opportunity while the PRL's legitimacy is of importance to its success, and the perception that the PRL is not legitimate is vital to the NPO/NLO's success, is not at all neutral. If you want to actually be neutral, do those of us who aren't neutral and would like to see a sovereign, liberal, democratic Lazarus a favor, and kindly butt out.
The notion that the PRL was legitimate is offensive. The idea that it has anything to do with a "sovereign, liberal, democratic Lazarus" is fiction.
I challenged the PRL's legitimacy whenever it was in contention prior to the latest coup. The latest coup does not change the PRL's nature.