The Rejected Times

[Unibot III]

Maybe a good example is the use of the "Discard". It was stated to be reserved only for "egregious" violations, and not for technicalities:

really bad, terrible, awful, violations. Think Max Barry Day, previously undiscovered plagisarism, or saying NS is a game in the text of a Resolution.

A category violation is a technical glitch. If something escapes the author, he takes his lumps. If it escapes the players, they take theirs. If it escapes the mods, we take ours*2. For the most part, category is arguable. Arguable Resolutions get repealed, not dumped.

Just 12 days later, a Discard was invoked. For an "egregious violation"? No, for the most minor technicality imaginable: a branding violation. And why this sudden turnabout? Because the resolution in question was a repeal of Rights & Duties, which was written by another moderator.

The mods are volunteers who do their best for a game we all enjoy playing and the urge to defend them is completely understandable, but the specific moderation of the WA is flawed and pointing this out is not hysterical propaganda, but simple observation.

*sniggers* What they meant to say was, "we don't want a repeal of GA#2 to pass".

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Hey folks - if there are GA/WA related issues and questions, lets take them to the appropriate forums. If there are matters you wish addressed of a Modly variety, take it to Moderation, or GHR. Lets get back on track please - thanks!

[Glen-Rhodes]

Hey folks - if there are GA/WA related issues and questions, lets take them to the appropriate forums. If there are matters you wish addressed of a Modly variety, take it to Moderation, or GHR. Lets get back on track please - thanks!

1. The "track" is a discussion on GA issues, since that's what Gruen wrote for his article. Nobody's getting off topic here!

2. If taking anything to Moderation ever did anything in past, maybe there'd be more willingness to make formal complaints. If we were having this discussion in Moderation, you'd be telling us to take it elsewhere because Moderation isn't for open-ended discussions.

[Valrifell]

Hey folks - if there are GA/WA related issues and questions, lets take them to the appropriate forums. If there are matters you wish addressed of a Modly variety, take it to Moderation, or GHR. Lets get back on track please - thanks!

1. The "track" is a discussion on GA issues, since that's what Gruen wrote for his article. Nobody's getting off topic here!

2. If taking anything to Moderation ever did anything in past, maybe there'd be more willingness to make formal complaints. If we were having this discussion in Moderation, you'd be telling us to take it elsewhere because Moderation isn't for open-ended discussions.

1. There's an entire GA subforum dedicated to... the GA! (I was surprised too when I found out) and while someone wrote about the GA in a GP newspaper, this isn't the proper place for an in-depth conversation on the topic when an entire subforum exists for it.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong but, yes, Moderation has opened up to include discussion threads. So, no, Mods won't hammer down on such a topic because Moderation is for open-ended discussions now.

[Zaolat]

1. The "track" is a discussion on GA issues, since that's what Gruen wrote for his article. Nobody's getting off topic here!

2. If taking anything to Moderation ever did anything in past, maybe there'd be more willingness to make formal complaints. If we were having this discussion in Moderation, you'd be telling us to take it elsewhere because Moderation isn't for open-ended discussions.

1. There's an entire GA subforum dedicated to... the GA! (I was surprised too when I found out) and while someone wrote about the GA in a GP newspaper, this isn't the proper place for an in-depth conversation on the topic when an entire subforum exists for it.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong but, yes, Moderation has opened up to include discussion threads. So, no, Mods won't hammer down on such a topic because Moderation is for open-ended discussions now.

We've had discussions like this before and no problem has come of it. Why so different now?

[The Dark Star Republic]

2. Correct me if I'm wrong but, yes, Moderation has opened up to include discussion threads. So, no, Mods won't hammer down on such a topic because Moderation is for open-ended discussions now.

I created such a [Discussion] thread in Moderation and it was immediately locked. I created another [Discussion] thread in Moderation and it received zero moderator response.

So, I'm going to say: you're wrong.

[Glen-Rhodes]

1. There's an entire GA subforum dedicated to... the GA! (I was surprised too when I found out) and while someone wrote about the GA in a GP newspaper, this isn't the proper place for an in-depth conversation on the topic when an entire subforum exists for it.

This discussion, if posted in the GA forum, would end up being moved elsewhere, too. I'm surprised Gruen hasn't been told to move his category reform thread to Technical yet.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong but, yes, Moderation has opened up to include discussion threads. So, no, Mods won't hammer down on such a topic because Moderation is for open-ended discussions now.

And as we all know, mods are very eager to hear complaints about themselves and will address them with sincerity and fairness, just as they did with complaints about Kyrozerkia, Mallorea and Riva, Mousebumples, etc.

I'm not under any illusion that anything said here will be taken to heart by the mods. So I'm not going to go post a thread about it in Moderation. I'm going to post my opinion here, since this is a newspaper thread and plenty of GA discussions have happened here before. I should note that they've happened before without mod red text. But I guess the criticism is getting too sharp?

[Revall]

Meanwhile, tensions continue to rise in TRR City today as posters were up in arms at moderators. We expect the moderators to give an official response any minute.

[RiderSyl]

Y'know, I could not give less of a shit about the GA. There are plenty of others in that boat.
Similarly, there's lot of people, myself include, that could not care less about your shtick with moderation.

The article you guys are claiming keeps the past conversation from being "off-topic" came in the middle of a shit-ton of Gameplay-related articles. That nobody has talked about. Because everyone and their grandmother would rather make the thread solely about the one thing they want to discuss. Have these convo's happened in the past? Naturally. Have they absolutely dominated the thread for multiple pages, making it look like we're not even in the Gameplay forum anymore? If they have, those should have been red-text'd too, because this isn't the fucking place.

[Sedgistan]

Not all TRT articles are on Gameplaying, and that's fine - the focus of the paper is still on GP matters. When non-GP articles are posted, it is okay to have some discussion of them here, despite it being the GP forum. However, lengthy discussions on non-GP matters are best held elsewhere - and I think it's in your best interests to have them elsewhere, as it'll get more attention from the right audience. So when something has gone beyond discussing the article to discussing wider issues, I would suggest moving it elsewhere.

There's been a few GA related things brought up here:

Category reform has a thread already in the GA here. It hasn't had much in the way of mod response yet, but it is definitely being read, and we will be posting there. There are changes in the pipeline, and I don't see why we can't post them there for review/input before anything is implemented.

Rules reform - I've seen suggestions of re-writing the ruleset, and similar - if that's something you want, I'd suggest posting a thread in the GA, and including concrete suggestions for changes (how you think rules should be worded etc.), as those are far more helpful and easier to discuss (it's easy to agree that "the rules should be simpler"; but "simpler" means different things to different people). If you want to write up an entire new ruleset that you think we should adopt, feel free.

There've been some general moderation grievances - particularly over a perceived lack of participation by mods in the forum, as well as various other matters like use of the "Discard" feature. These would probably best be addressed in discussion threads in Moderation. Other suggestions like having a GA "reset" of resolutions would best belong in a new thread in the GA.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Sedge, I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful, but (at least imo) what you're not getting here is that these are issues that have existed for a long time, have been called out many times before, and issues that players have tried to jump-start discussions on before, only for nothing to happen-- or for things to be ignored, or to be told that there's no problems. Literally everything you've said we should do, has actually been done already.

So, for me, when you say that it's better to have these discussions elsewhere, to provide concrete suggestions and all that, all I can think is, "And then what?" It'd be a change of pace for the mods themselves to get involved seriously and start these discussions.

[Sedgistan]

I know it doesn't always seem that way, but the Moderation/Admin team do make changes - yes, not always the ones you want, and very often slowly - but we are open to change, when it's worthwhile. The "Health" category is an example - that'd been requested for years, and there are several threads just on the current forums about introducing it - and eventually we did.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Thank you for responding, Sedgistan. You have been more responsive in the past couple of days than the GA mods have in years.

[The Rejected Times]

Belschaft declared "Security Threat" by TSP Cabinet
COMMENTARY | TRR STAFF

In a stunning turn of events, Belschaft has been removed from The South Pacific by order of the Cabinet of The South Pacific – the cabinet decided to declare Belschaft a security threat; a decision which bars Belschaft from attaining citizenship. Belschaft can pursue an appeal of the decision through the Regional Assembly where a supermajority for an override is required.

The cabinet's statement reflects on the events of Operation Brave Little Toaster and Belschaft’s recent reluctance to atone for his behavior; Belschaft was implicated in an attempt to undermine The South Pacific’s general elections and even suggested in private to Cormac Stark that he would use his position as Chief Justice to rule The South Pacific’s treaty with The Rejected Realms as unconstitutional.

News of the removal broke moments before its anticipation when The Trans-Pacific Times reported that there were “rumors abound that The South Pacific [would] revoke Belschaft’s citizenship […] unofficial sources speculate this is due to Belschaft’s alleged involvement in electoral fraud”. These rumors have now been confirmed with the posting of the official statement.

Some of the cabinet spoke briefly to The Rejected Times over the issue.

“This is probably the most difficult decision a Cabinet has ever had to make, and we were all reluctant until the very last moment,” explains Kringalia, Minister of Regional Affairs “We only made it taking the best interests of the region into account, and believing that there was no possible alternative.”

Unibot, Chief of the Assembly, nodded; noting that it was one of the harder decisions he had had to make in NationStates. “The right one, sure, but not always the one you want to make,” adds Unibot.

Discussion is now circling around Belschaft’s open defamation case in The South Pacific; some judicial experts have suggested that with the plaintiff removed from the region, the case is voided, while others argue that the constitution’s plaintiff rights would extend to residents. Official judicial input on the subject is forthcoming and expected.

[Solorni]

New Kervoskia did this first

[KaelThas Quilor]

Unibot, you're not allowed to quote yourself in your own paper. Also, I doubt it was a hard decision for you in particular.

While I'm not in the heads of TSPers, and can't know the feelings they might have regarding all this, nor the kinds of hard decisions and factors the cabinet weighed, everything I know of Bel says this is a mistake. But I have neither the information, context or real right to say, at the end of the day, if this is, on the whole, best for TSP. So I'll reserve my commentary to saying that this is unfortunate and wish TSP prosperity - whatever else, this episode has been resolved, and TSP can move on from it.

[BadNewsBarrett]

Discussion is now circling around Belschaft’s open defamation case in The South Pacific; some judicial experts have suggested that with the plaintiff removed from the region, the case is voided, while others argue that the constitution’s plaintiff rights would extend to residents. Official judicial input on the subject is forthcoming and expected.

Do you want to try the oligarchy in the south pacific? I'm afraid I've got some bad news.

[Belschaft]

Discussion is now circling around Belschaft’s open defamation case in The South Pacific; some judicial experts have suggested that with the plaintiff removed from the region, the case is voided, while others argue that the constitution’s plaintiff rights would extend to residents. Official judicial input on the subject is forthcoming and expected.

It should be noted that I have now removed myself as completely as possible from TSP's jurisdiction, as I have no intent of allowing myself to be subject to the laws of a region where I have been extra-judicially stripped of my civil and political rights. Readers of TSP's cabinet statement should note the following statements;

The Cabinet is an institution entrusted with great power, and throughout the years we have always worked towards the good of the South Pacific, ensuring the welfare of all nations and the continued security of the region. While this often involves rewarding and enjoyable tasks that clearly show how the region benefits, sometimes we find ourselves in situations that require taking difficult decisions, and despite our personal preferences, those decisions need to be taken, if the safety of the region is to be ensured.

On 18 October 2014 it came to our attention that Belschaft led a plot called Operation Brave Little Toaster an attempt to unduly influence regional elections by importing votes, due to his desire to overturn certain government policies and to remove Unibot from the Cabinet in the November General Elections. When confronted, he accepted his actions and apologised. Despite repeated calls for treason charges, the Cabinet limited itself to recalling Belschaft from all his government positions, since we believed that his apology was sincere, and his recalls were enough punishment.

However, in recent days Belschaft has returned to political activity and denied any wrongdoing. While he has justified himself claiming his actions were a legitimate investigation of the possibility that Unibot was elected through fraud, there are no records of him approaching the Election Commission, the High Court or the Committee for State Security, nor do his suspicions justify the fact that he organised a plot to commit the very conduct that he was acting against, that he recklessly endangered the integrity of the region, or that he planned to abuse his position as Chief Justice to repeal the Treaty with the Rejected Realms, due to his personal opposition to it.

This is unacceptable behaviour from a Former Delegate and displays an extreme lack of respect for the South Pacific and its democracy, due process and freedom of speech, values that are at the very core of our institutionality. Everyone has a right to be upset and politically opposed to other citizens, but acting upon that opposition in a destructive manner, that could even threaten the sovereignty of the region, is unacceptable, and supposes a very serious threat to our security. In view of the fact that his continued presence is a risk to the security of the region, and pursuant to the authority vested in us by the Charter, the Cabinet has unanimously resolved to revoke the status of Belschaft as a Citizen of the Coalition of the South Pacific.

We regret the nature of this decision, and despite public pressure to take it, our discussions focused on the legal and security considerations of this measure, not on its potential popularity or lack thereof. It is our sincere belief that, while difficult, this decision is in the best interests of the South Pacific.

My return to political activity - in the form of my decision to seek government office - is specifically mentioned in the cabinet statement. That in of itself should be concerning to any citizen of The South Pacific, or anyone of a liberal leaning in general. That political activity constitutes a security risk is something one would expect of authoritarian regimes, not the oldest democracy in NationStates. Equally concerning is that despite claiming that my "presence is a risk to the security of the region" no actual example or evidence of how this is the case is presented. With the exception of my political activity and circumspect references to my prosecution of cabinet members for defamation no reference is made to present activities; all references to my actions relate to July 2014, eight months ago. Actions committed eight months ago cannot possibly be considered current or continued.

At no point have I been convicted of, or even charged with, a crime. There is also no serious question that my actions, whilst certainly controversial and underhanded, were entirely legal. I am not the only person to ever consider importing pledged voters into TSP; others actually have done so in the past. Current Cabinet member Unibot, for example, specifically recruited defender subordinates from the UDL into TSP in 2012 to alter the ideological make up of the region. These subordinates were then habitually contacted before key votes, for example on a treaty with TNI, to make sure that they - despite otherwise being inactive and not posting - would vote. Vote stacking is distasteful, but is entirely normal in NS.

Any suggestion that the extra-judicial stripping of my citizenship - an entirely unprecedented act, that not even Milograd, was actively couping the region, was subjected to - invalidates my criminal charges is completely fatuous. Even a five minute reading of TSP's laws will make such clear. Whilst I cannot personally continue the case without placing myself within the jurisdiction of TSP, I intend to consult with my legal representative shortly about continuing the matter in my absence.

At this point, whilst TSP is unquestionably a democracy, it can no longer be described as liberal.

[Kringalia]

[20:19] <Bel> Me and Todd are going to strike back

[20:19] <Bel> We're putting together something called "Operation Toaster"

[20:21] <Bel> The general plan is to bring reliable people into TSP over the next four months, ready for the next general election

[20:23] <Bel> We need to take the Delegacy/VD and two other Cabinet slots

[20:26] <Bel> Arguing gets us fucking nothing. We need to win the next general election.

[20:26] <Bel> It's the last chance we have to save the Coalition, or we'll all be living in a FRA member region

[20:26] <Bel> We need to hold the Delegacy. It's that fucking simple.

[20:27] <Bel> A cabinet majority gives us the executive machinery to do what we need to do
[20:27] <Bel> And by that I mean kick Glen and Uni the fuck out of TSP, fyi

[20:33] <Bel> In terms of action should we get the 4/6 on the cabinet we need including D/VD

[20:34] <Bel> Uni and Glen need to go. There is a Cabinet mechanism to strip citizenship
[20:34] <Bel> I would also want to remove them from the forums as well

[20:34] <Bel> Beyond those two... I don't see any need to go further
01[20:34] <Bel> If we don't cut out the cancer it will return

[20:35] <Bel> If we're going to do this then we might as well do it properly. Leaving Glen and Uni in TSP will simply defer trouble a few more months

[20:37] <Bel> It would be legal. The mechanisms exist for the citizenship removal.

[20:38] <Bel> Define security threat. I would argue that we face an existential threat to our regions culture, identity, history and form of government
[20:38] <Bel> Does that constitute security?
[20:40] <Bel> An alternative would be to use Article 9

[20:44] <Bel> We're strong in the Judicary and CSS
[20:44] <Bel> We want to build on that strength

[20:45] <Bel> The general principle is that the first side to act illegally will probably lose

[20:45] <Bel> The less political CSS members like B&N and Aram will go with the side with the law on their side
[20:45] <Bel> As will most of the interegional community

[20:46] <Bel> Get that and we could do this illegally if we *had* to

[20:46] <Bel> Get the cabinet majority and we can do it legally
[20:47] <Bel> I would prefer legal, but if we have no choice I would reluctantly do it illegally tbh
[20:47] <Bel> Ultimately, it all comes down to one vote in four months time

[20:48] <Bel> I have faith in our ability to organize, and the reliability of Todd and TEP
[20:48] <Bel> We're being bumrushed

Yes, TSP definitely removed your citizenship because of political reasons. Nothing to you with your seeming willingness to illegally remove citizens, and refusal to admit that it was wrong of you to do it.

[Canton Empire]

Wasnt it just Brave Toaster, not "Little Brave Toaster"?

[Belschaft]

[20:19] <Bel> Me and Todd are going to strike back

[20:19] <Bel> We're putting together something called "Operation Toaster"

[20:21] <Bel> The general plan is to bring reliable people into TSP over the next four months, ready for the next general election

[20:23] <Bel> We need to take the Delegacy/VD and two other Cabinet slots

[20:26] <Bel> Arguing gets us fucking nothing. We need to win the next general election.

[20:26] <Bel> It's the last chance we have to save the Coalition, or we'll all be living in a FRA member region

[20:26] <Bel> We need to hold the Delegacy. It's that fucking simple.

[20:27] <Bel> A cabinet majority gives us the executive machinery to do what we need to do
[20:27] <Bel> And by that I mean kick Glen and Uni the fuck out of TSP, fyi

[20:33] <Bel> In terms of action should we get the 4/6 on the cabinet we need including D/VD

[20:34] <Bel> Uni and Glen need to go. There is a Cabinet mechanism to strip citizenship
[20:34] <Bel> I would also want to remove them from the forums as well

[20:34] <Bel> Beyond those two... I don't see any need to go further
01[20:34] <Bel> If we don't cut out the cancer it will return

[20:35] <Bel> If we're going to do this then we might as well do it properly. Leaving Glen and Uni in TSP will simply defer trouble a few more months

[20:37] <Bel> It would be legal. The mechanisms exist for the citizenship removal.

[20:38] <Bel> Define security threat. I would argue that we face an existential threat to our regions culture, identity, history and form of government
[20:38] <Bel> Does that constitute security?
[20:40] <Bel> An alternative would be to use Article 9

[20:44] <Bel> We're strong in the Judicary and CSS
[20:44] <Bel> We want to build on that strength

[20:45] <Bel> The general principle is that the first side to act illegally will probably lose

[20:45] <Bel> The less political CSS members like B&N and Aram will go with the side with the law on their side
[20:45] <Bel> As will most of the interegional community

[20:46] <Bel> Get that and we could do this illegally if we *had* to

[20:46] <Bel> Get the cabinet majority and we can do it legally
[20:47] <Bel> I would prefer legal, but if we have no choice I would reluctantly do it illegally tbh
[20:47] <Bel> Ultimately, it all comes down to one vote in four months time

[20:48] <Bel> I have faith in our ability to organize, and the reliability of Todd and TEP
[20:48] <Bel> We're being bumrushed

Yes, TSP definitely removed your citizenship because of political reasons. Nothing to you with your seeming willingness to illegally remove citizens, and refusal to admit that it was wrong of you to do it.

Yes, because events that occurred eight months ago clearly constitute a present security threat

[Xoriet]

<ThatGuy> I have faith in our ability to organize, and the reliability of some other people not acting on behalf of their region who will be happier if everyone leaves them well out of mention in current TSP affairs in any context related to the idiocy of a week last July, as is widely preferred by everyone.*

*Edited because TEP as a region had no part in it, and Belschaft suggesting that TEP itself was involved when it was no such thing is both offensive and misinforming to people who have no idea what they are reading, or are just hearing about this.

[Belschaft]

<ThatGuy> I have faith in our ability to organize, and the reliability of some other people not acting on behalf of their region who will be happier if everyone leaves them well out of mention in current TSP affairs in any context related to the idiocy of a week last July, as is widely preferred by everyone.*

*Edited because TEP as a region had no part in it, and Belschaft suggesting that TEP itself was involved when it was no such thing is both offensive and misinforming to people who have no idea what they are reading, or are just hearing about this.

In all fairness, TEP was considered a prime source of people that;

1. Todd trusts
2. Hate Uni

But yes, OBT was by no means official TEP activity.

[Solorni]

I don't know how to feel about Balder people not being invited

[Ikania]

Noting Belschaft's defamation suit, it seems a bit fishy to then declare him a security threat and bar him from doing anything useful in the region.