Note: this is slightly off-topic since it is not directly relevant to the recall motion at vote. I ask the Speaker’s indulgence, and will happily edit out, move or delete the post should ABC consider it out of order.
Over the past day or so, almost whenever I have been on Discord, I have faced repeated demands from a couple of people that I explain or justify some of my comments in this thread even though, frankly, I thought they were pretty clear. I chose not to respond on Discord, which is an ephemeral medium but instead to respond in the thread which has, for context, the original comments. Hopefully this will stop the repeated pings.
The first comment that seems to have got danders up was this:
this proposal seems absurdly premature. I wonder what political agenda is being played out here?
Leaving aside the premature comment for the moment, it may come as a surprise to some but Nationstates is a
political simulation. Whenever something like a recall is called (or a recall is NOT called when an official cocks up or neglects their office), then the first question any of us should be asking is “what political agenda is being played out here? This is NS 101.
It is also fair that, in a recall thread, possible motives for the recall are explored and discussed. If the motives were lily-white pure, then it is for the proposer to explain why the proposal was brought at that particular time (which is earlier than most other recalls) and the RA can make a judgement as to whether this was objective or personal.
Personally, I think that people pretty much ALWAYS have a political agenda. I know I do. Even “wanting the Region to have an active VD and recalling as soon as possible” is a political agenda, as is “wanting to give a little more time for the VD to return because I want the region to be a bit more understanding than it appears at the moment.” It’s all politics, because it is all about shaping and moulding TNP.
The other comment that made fur fly was this:
the undue haste with which this has been brought to the RA and was pushed towards a vote seems petty at least, and vindictive/machiavallian at worst.
Throughout the thread I have argued that I consider this recall to be premature. Others disagree with me on that, which is fine. Some err on the side of harshness, others on the side of lenity. Since there is no automatic trigger for a recall motion then the timing will always be a judgement call. I think it too soon, and I stand by that.
I regret the use of the word vindictive, and apologise for that. But again, I was putting alternative scenarios to the RA as to why this recall was being pushed so hard and so fast. Recalls have an enormous impact on NS careers. Although some recover, there are people in TNP who will never recover politically from a recall. Recalls should not be entered in to lightly or hastily. So when I see a recall being rushed (as this one has been, especially in the handling of it by the Speaker’s office) I do, indeed, think it petty and if it is politically motivated then Machiavellian fits the bill.
The proposer responded to my post and asserted that there was nothing personal or political going on towards Deropia. Fair enough – that was enough for me. But I hope nobody would suggest that a member of the RA should not even speculate as to the motivation behind a proposal being brought to the RA. If I had not done so, then the proposer would never have had the chance to respond “I am doing exactly what I would hope people would do to me if I was in the seat of Delegate or Vice Delegate.”
Eh, this is already TL
R. I do not intend to respond further, or to get into discussions about this on Discord. So no pings.
