[DRAFT] Condemn Hileville

[Railana]

Please note that the forum links will be removed upon submission.

Condemn Hileville
Category: Condemnation | Target: Hileville

Recognizing that the Coalition of the South Pacific has served as the legitimate and democratic government of the South Pacific for more than a decade,

Recalling that on 22 January 2016, Hileville, the delegate of the South Pacific, created a new regional forum, installed themselves and their allies as administrators, and declared that this forum was the sole official regional forum of the South Pacific,

Alarmed that on 27 January 2016, in a ruling (HCLQ1602) issued by Farengeto, the High Court of the South Pacific declared that this forum move was unconstitutional and illegal,

Bearing in mind that the Charter of the Coalition of the South Pacific states that the South Pacific's Assembly "reserves the sole right to authorize the creation of a new Regional Forum" and that Hileville received no such authorization from the legislature for this forum move,

Deeply disturbed that on 31 January 2016, in response to this constitutional challenge, Hileville declared that they were unilaterally dissolving the Charter and establishing a new "transitional government" of the South Pacific,

Fully aware that the Charter states that the power to amend the Charter rests exclusively with the legislature of the South Pacific, not the delegate or their cabinet,

Noting with concern that Hileville banned dissenting members Sandaoguo and Kringalia, as well as the Court Justice that had ruled against Hileville, Farengeto, from the region indefinitely,

Strongly believing that Hileville's actions constitute a coup d’état of the South Pacific and are a grave threat to good governance and democratic rule in the region,

Noting with satisfaction the numerous condemnations from the inter-regional community, including from the Rejected Realms, Lazarus, and Spiritus, of Hileville's unconstitutional, illegal, and completely unjustifiable behaviour,

Calling for the timely and orderly removal from power of Hileville and their allies by loyal residents of the South Pacific and their allies, as well as for the restoration of the South Pacific's legitimate government,

The Security Council,

Hereby condemns Hileville.

[Mallorea and Riva]

You want to condemn him already? Jesus let him get a few thousand ejections under his belt first.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

You're referencing and linking to the electronic forums? That would make it illegal under R4.

[Valrifell]

C'mon brah, he's bringing intrigue and interest.

[Railana]

You want to condemn him already? Jesus let him get a few thousand ejections under his belt first.

I think he's already done enough to justify a condemnation.

You're referencing and linking to the electronic forums? That would make it illegal under R4.

I know that I'm not allowed to link to the forums, which I plan to remove the links before the proposal is submitted, as I noted at the top of the OP.

Am I not allowed to even mention the offsite forums, though? I thought it was legal unless I "plainly refer[ed] to the electronic entity."

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

You're referencing and linking to the electronic forums? That would make it illegal under R4.

I know that I'm not allowed to link to the forums, which I plan to remove the links before the proposal is submitted, as I noted at the top of the OP.

Am I not allowed to even mention the offsite forums, though? I thought it was legal unless I "plainly refer[ed] to the electronic entity."

I read this;

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=52242

Your mentions of the forums seems to be outside of NS as described in the link.

[Railana]

You're referencing and linking to the electronic forums? That would make it illegal under R4.

I know that I'm not allowed to link to the forums, which I plan to remove the links before the proposal is submitted, as I noted at the top of the OP.

Am I not allowed to even mention the offsite forums, though? I thought it was legal unless I "plainly refer[ed] to the electronic entity."

I read this;

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... 24&t=52242

Your mentions of the forums seems to be outside of NS as described in the link.

Doesn't Ardchoille say that it's okay to talk about offsite forums in the sense of "the forums of our nation"?

If you express it in such terms – destruction of @@REGION@@’s community, shock and distress to the members of @@REGION@@ (which can be read in the sense “member nations”), loss of its history, invasion or destruction of, or attack on, its forums – you’ll be sweet with Rule 4.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Doesn't Ardchoille say that it's okay to talk about offsite forums in the sense of "the forums of our nation"?

If you express it in such terms – destruction of @@REGION@@’s community, shock and distress to the members of @@REGION@@ (which can be read in the sense “member nations”), loss of its history, invasion or destruction of, or attack on, its forums – you’ll be sweet with Rule 4.

Yes, but are you not referring to 'forum masking', 'administration team[s]', and 'forum move[s]'?

OOC: Please note that neither I nor Europe have any opinion on the matter presented here. This post was entirely to clear up a typographical issue.

[Railana]

Doesn't Ardchoille say that it's okay to talk about offsite forums in the sense of "the forums of our nation"?

Yes, but are you not referring to 'forum masking', 'administration team[s]', and 'forum move[s]'?

I don't think the latter two pose a problem; the location of a physical gathering can be moved to another physical location, and a physical forum can have a team responsible for administering it. The first might, however; I'll see if I can find an appropriate synonym.

[SouthMac]

I'm not sure about the forum references -- I think they're fine, given that Allied States of EuroIslanders and Unknown have both been condemned in the past for forum destruction -- but you definitely have R4 violations. Your uses of "his" violate R4; you're talking about nations, in the SC, not players. The pronouns need to refer to nations rather than players.

The technical problems aside, I oppose this condemnation. Not every step taken in a Feeder or Sinker that is inconsistent with its laws is worthy of condemnation, as the dissolution of the Kemetic Republic of Osiris and the later establishment of the Osiris Fraternal Order demonstrated. Why condemn Hileville before seeing what results this produces? If the results are positive, he shouldn't be condemned. This is premature, at best.

[Railana]

I'm not sure about the forum references -- I think they're fine, given that Allied States of EuroIslanders and Unknown have both been condemned in the past for forum destruction -- but you definitely have R4 violations. Your uses of "his" violate R4; you're talking about nations, in the SC, not players. The pronouns need to refer to nations rather than players.

Good catch, I'll fix that.

The technical problems aside, I oppose this condemnation. Not every step taken in a Feeder or Sinker that is inconsistent with its laws is worthy of condemnation, as the dissolution of the Kemetic Republic of Osiris and the later establishment of the Osiris Fraternal Order demonstrated. Why condemn Hileville before seeing what results this produces? If the results are positive, he shouldn't be condemned. This is premature, at best.

I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree. If there's already an established, functional democratic process in place, I think you have an obligation to use it. Hileville didn't, and for that reason alone he deserves to be condemned.

[Icecream Princess]

Far more likely that a commend Hileville would pass than a condemn one!

[RiderSyl]

Coups are not always bad. Coupers shouldn't automatically get a Condemn.

Until Hileville does something worse, I can't see this getting much support outside of the "you stole muh TSPs!" crowd.

[Lord Ravenclaw]

A little eager to get yourself a new badge aren't you? This event is basically bloodless.

Waaaaaaait, I'm sorry are you talking about using proper procedures or be condemned for it? A little rich coming from you isn't it? I'd hardly say your judgement is perfect, nor are you spotless in this area.

[Railana]

Waaaaaaait, I'm sorry are you talking about using proper procedures or be condemned for it? A little rich coming from you isn't it? I'd hardly say your judgement is perfect, nor are you spotless in this area.

I certainly acknowledge that I've made some serious mistakes, but those mistakes don't immunize Hileville from action by the Security Council, nor do they mean that I'm not allowed to call out bad behaviour when I see it.

[RiderSyl]

They do mean that you're not exactly the best author to be writing a condemnation for him, though. That's what I think Lord Ravenclaw was getting at.

[Railana]

They do mean that you're not exactly the best author to be writing a condemnation for him, though. That's what I think Lord Ravenclaw was getting at.

I know what they are implying; I just disagree with them. I'm not being hypocritical because I'm not unapologetic about my own rule-breaking; I deeply regret it and have no intention of ever doing anything like it again.

[Unibot III]

Here's some suggested reworkings of the text to make it flow better; I've condensed it a bit and added a clause about the CSS.

I agree with Raven though, Auralia, that you would be strongly better off pursuing this one with someone else as author. My suggestion would be to find a local in TSP who is less of a Gameplayer but someone who is widely respected as a TSP native. You could remain as a co-author perhaps. You're a fine author but in disputes over the legitimacy of regimes, it's best that the person speaking the resolution is someone with a lot of legitimacy. It'll also remove the crappy "he just wants a badge" argument. I'm sure you mean well, given you've been a contributing member of TSP for like three years both in-game and off-site (something some of your critics might not be aware of here.) You'll have done a strong service though by compiling a well written resolution for the cause and helping a TSP local lobby and get the resolution to vote. Just something to keep in mind. Bear in mind, if a condemnation went to vote and failed due to people opposing you more than the Coalition, it would still hurt the Coalition's legitimacy - and I doubt you want that.

Observing that on 22 January 2016, Hileville and their cabinet created a new regional forum and issued a declaration stating that this forum was the new "official" regional forum of the South Pacific; Hileville also installed himself and two other Cabinet ministers as the forum's administrators,

Recalling that on 27 January 2016, in a ruling (HCLQ1602) issued by Farengeto, the South Pacific's High Court declared that this forum move was unconstitutional and illegal,

Bearing in mind that the Charter states that the South Pacific's Assembly "reserves the sole right to authorize the creation of a new Regional Forum" and that Hileville and their cabinet received no such authorization from the legislature for this forum move,

Noting that on 31 January 2016, in response to this constitutional challenge, Hileville and their cabinet claimed that they had unilaterally dissolved the Charter, establishing a new "transitional government" of the South Pacific; moreover, Hileville banned dissenting members, Sandaoguo and Kringalia, as well as the Court Justice which had ruled against Hileville, from the region indefinitely,

Further noting that the Charter states that the power to amend the constitution rests with the Assembly of the South Pacific, not the delegate or their cabinet,

Appalled by the illegal, undemocratic, and completely unjustifiable actions of Hileville and their cabinet,

Finding the executive's behaviour constitutes both a coup d’état and grave threat to good governance and democratic rule in the South Pacific; the above actions are illegal, usurp the powers and remit of the region's legislative powers and are otherwise, utterly unjustifiable in a democratic society,

Acknowledging that the Committee of State Security (CSS) charged with the internal security of the region has declared a State of Emergency in the South Pacific, calling the executive's actions "[...] a serious breach of constitutional order and tantamount to a coup d’état" and vowing to "[...] work tirelessly towards a restoration of the Coalition under legitimate and democratic leadership,"

Calling for their timely and orderly removal from power by loyal residents of the South Pacific and their allies, as well as for the restoration of the Coalition, the South Pacific's legitimate government,

The Security Council,

Hereby condemns Hileville.

Furthermore, feel free to use absolutely anything I've written here.

[RiderSyl]

Here's some suggested reworkings of the text to make it flow better; I've condensed it a bit and added a clause about the CSS.

I agree with Raven though, Auralia, that you would be strongly better off pursuing this one with someone else as author. My suggestion would be to find a local in TSP who is less of a Gameplayer but someone who is widely respected as a TSP native. You could remain as a co-author perhaps. You're a fine author but in disputes over the legitimacy of regimes, it's best that the person speaking the resolution is someone with a lot of legitimacy. It'll also remove the crappy "he just wants a badge" argument.

I agree with Unibot on this one.
..

[Railana]

snip

Thanks for the advice, Unibot. I'll be sure to give it careful consideration.

[Consular]

I'm going to disagree with the others here. I really don't see how Auralia's past naughtiness in the Security Council in any way affects the quality of this resolution. As for badge seeking, Auralia is already an accomplished author in the General Assembly and has plenty of badges as it is.

It would however be a good idea to find some natives who oppose the coup and collaborate with them.

[Railana]

I've integrated some of Unibot's suggestions and have started asking some other TSP natives if they're interested in being co-authors.

[Unibot III]

I've integrated some of Unibot's suggestions and have started asking some other TSP natives if they're interested in being co-authors.

Good luck Railana. All the best to you.

[Belschaft]

Hi guys;

I don't think this draft really represents the situation fairly; there were decent reasons for the forum move, and it enjoyed fairly large support both inside TSP and abroad. I'm willing to go over the whole thing with you later if you want to proceed with this, but I'd ask that this be delayed for now. TSP is calmed down right now, and I really don't want anything to inflame the situation again.

[Aigyptos]

Hi guys;

I don't think this draft really represents the situation fairly; there were decent reasons for the forum move, and it enjoyed fairly large support both inside TSP and abroad. I'm willing to go over the whole thing with you later if you want to proceed with this, but I'd ask that this be delayed for now. TSP is calmed down right now, and I really don't want anything to inflame the situation again.

I would add, since Railana seems to have missed it, that the vibe I'm getting in this thread is that there are already prominent Feederites, including the Delegate of The North Pacific, who are prepared to stomp against this proposal but just aren't coming out and saying it. Not only might it cause unnecessary uproar in TSP now that it is in the process of recovery, or whatever you want to call it, but it may cause that uproar only to fail at vote. I would regard that outcome as very likely, indeed.