Recall Novare Res from the Security Council

Again, I fail to see where in this thread (or anywhere) it's said we want to "purge" anyone. You're overreacting.

Look, I've saved you all the trouble. I have resigned from the Security Council. Go beat up on someone else. It's not worth my effort and time to even fight this.

Originally I was on the fence about this. I had been asked to support this from people on both sides, but I wanted to hear from you Roman. I asked for the bill to be delayed to give you a chance to respond. This response you have given was not at all what I expected. I as Speaker, a member of the Security Council, and as a citizen of TNP am disappointed how this devolved.

Since you have tendered your resignation from the Security Council, I want to say thank you for your service in the past and wish you the best for the future. If you continue to participate in TNP, I wish you the best.

Artemis:

Originally I was on the fence about this. I had been asked to support this from people on both sides, but I wanted to hear from you Roman. I asked for the bill to be delayed to give you a chance to respond. This response you have given was not at all what I expected. I as Speaker, a member of the Security Council, and as a citizen of TNP am disappointed how this devolved.

Since you have tendered your resignation from the Security Council, I want to say thank you for your service in the past and wish you the best for the future. If you continue to participate in TNP, I wish you the best.

Click to expand...

The problem is that no one wanted to even hear from me on this matter at all, and people made up their mind regardless of anything I have to say, and that is what I find so disappointing. Instead of taking advantage of and putting to use people with a very long resume of service and expertise, some people (as in the people who promoted this inane 'recall') go out of the way to throw that service and expertise in the dust bin instead of asking it to be put to use. You'd think that some people would be happy with me being so silent for so long, but apparently not. Instead they choose to beat up on Ol' Roman for sport.

Contrary to what some people might thing, I have indeed been paying attention to what is going on and I do have some serious criticism of certain points about how the business of this region is being conducted, but nobody wants to hear what I have to say about anything. So, as a result, I keep it to myself unless someone specifically asks me.

If there was any real concern for what I have to say on this matter, I would have been actually given a chance to speak. Instead, most of you already made up your minds to do what you wanted to do regardless of anything I have to say.

As a point of constructive criticism, I will, however, make this point: as Speaker, you made a parliamentary procedural faux pas on your handling of the debate on this matter - you precluded any chance of this measure being objected to on the false grounds that there is no procedure to 'table' the motion. There is indeed a procedure and process for 'tabling' such motions and apparently you are either unaware of that or decided to thwart any attempt at tabling the matter.

The point is that there is no legal basis for this recall at all. Read the laws concerning the requirements of Security Councillors - endotarting is not a requirement. Having the proper level of endorsements is the only thing required in that department. And, as a point of irony, if I were to endotart, there would assuredly be complaints about how high my endorsement levels were. Believe me, I've refined endotarting to a fine art and I don't need to use scripts and mass PMs on the RMB to do it.

All any of you had to do was to ask me directly to endotart and I would have easily accumulated a minimum of 500 endorsements in a weeks time. Did anyone ever think about asking me to do that? Of course not. There was nothing more than 'let's kick Roman around like a dog toy on the floor." This 'recall' has only had the effect of weakening the SC by removing one of the strongest members of the SC (and the only member of the SC that ever held the Delegacy as a caretaker until the Vice Delegate could assume the position). You have successfully weakened the SC by removing the only member of the SC that has proved he is capable of holding the Delegacy in place by virtue of have actually done it. Nice going.

Yes, I over-reacted to this, but what else could I do in the face of this utter act of stupidity on the part of the people who promulgated this 'recall'. I do not call this recall an utter act of stupidity as an off-hand comment because one of the people involved in it I consider a friend and a person I personally mentored in TNP. ut, again, this 'recall' did damage to the effectiveness of the Security Council by removing a strong member of the Security Council.

I wasn't going to mention this next point for obvious reasons, but in order to correct a structural problem involving the position of a Delegate and keeping it secure, I will say it:

This 'recall' has now established the precedent which will enable someone to literally steal the Delegacy by virtue of arbitrary and capricious removal of SC members without any basis in law or Constitution. All any ambitious potential usurper or rogue has to do is to pick off any SC member that might stand in the way of a usurper or rogue and do so without any legal reason to remove SC members. And this is true for any position in the government of TNP, elected or appointed. You can be picked off just because someone doesn't like you or wants you out of the way for whatever reason they want. And this situation involving 'recalls' will eventually be the downfall of TNP. An angry 'mob' could easily conduct a French Style Revolution (metaphorically speaking) with nothing more than a simple majority in the RA. In simple terms, the government of TNP is prone to being picked off, one by one, from any point in the organisational ladder by means of mob-rule 'recalls' and, if something is not done about preventing 'recalls' for arbitrary reasons, someone will eventually try it and actually do it. And when they do it, there will be no basis in TNP Law or Constitution to prevent them from doing, and doing it quite openly.

This is why this type of arbitrary 'recall' is dangerous. You just let someone pick off a member of the SC who was the only one proved to be able to do what the SC was designed to do by virtue of actually having done the job successfully.

But nobody ever listens to Good Ol' Roman because he's just a babbling alarmist who we rake over the coals for pointing out the obvious and then what he says surely comes to pass and then we can blame Good Ol' Roman for not listening to his advice and warnings. And that, my friend, is the reason why I have chosen to remain largely silent for such a long time unless I see something really stupid happening.

And to prove to you the truth of what I say, I'll tell you what will now happen - everybody (the usual suspects) will pile on Good Ol' Roman and beat him into the ground for speaking the truth and pointing out the obvious.

And then watch people proceed to do exactly what I warned them about and then blame me for pointing it out.

But nobody really wants to hear anything I have to say and if they do, they don't listen, take it the wrong way or distort what I said to suit their own agenda or template.

@Romanoffia I'm pinging you instead of quoting because the post is long.

I absolutely agree with you win of course most of these things. I do wish to hear what you say. In fact, I'll listen to anyone for what they have to say. Now does this mean I agree with all of those people. Not everyone but a good Majority of people I do agree with and listen to. I admit you're original approach to this was a bit, err... Quick and premature. Especially since you assumed the Minister of Communications was our Speaker. But honestly? I think you're a good person, Roman. Maybe this isn't the right time for you but getting involved in the region again and endotarting will get you somewhere. Hopefully one day we'll accept you with open arms on the Security Council.

Romanoffia:

The problem is that no one wanted to even hear from me on this matter at all, and people made up their mind regardless of anything I have to say, and that is what I find so disappointing.

Click to expand...

I was planning on voting against your recall until you showed up and started going off on bizarre tangents.

Romanoffia:

Second, you seem to think it arrogant if someone says they are going to run for Delegate in an election? How very rude of you.

Click to expand...

I don’t think someone is arrogant if they say “I’m going to run for Delegate.”
I think someone is arrogant if they say “I’m going to be Delegate.”
There’s a difference. But then again I’m pretty sure you calling me rude is just part of your attempt to piss off as many people with your “woe-is-me” pitty party/blaze of glory at this point.

Romanoffia:

First of all, you don't even know me by your own admission.

Click to expand...

Hi, I’m Prydania. I like to RP and I’ve been very active in TNP over the last year and a half in that arena. Maybe we would have gotten to know each other had you bothered to show up in that time.

As the Attorney General, I feel the need to clear up some misinformation that Roman is propagating. I know that this isn't TNP Civics 101, it's a recall proposal, but I don't want anyone to get mistaken impressions about how this process works, and the basis that it has in law. Let's take this point by point:

Romanoffia:

The problem is that no one wanted to even hear from me on this matter at all, and people made up their mind regardless of anything I have to say, and that is what I find so disappointing.

Click to expand...

Here are several people calling to hear from Roman on this matter, and withholding judgment until they hear what he has to say:

Romanoffia:

As a point of constructive criticism, I will, however, make this point: as Speaker, you made a parliamentary procedural faux pas on your handling of the debate on this matter - you precluded any chance of this measure being objected to on the false grounds that there is no procedure to 'table' the motion. There is indeed a procedure and process for 'tabling' such motions and apparently you are either unaware of that or decided to thwart any attempt at tabling the matter.

Click to expand...

There is no procedure to table a motion as such - postponing continued debate indefinitely. This is the closest we have in the RA rules:

RA Rules:

3. If, before a vote on a proposal begins, at least three citizens object to the decision of the Speaker to schedule it, the Speaker must cancel the scheduled vote.

Click to expand...

To invoke this procedure, we must be in the period in between when the vote is scheduled and the vote begins. It is invoked by saying "I object to the decision of the Speaker to schedule a vote on this proposal" or equivalent. Saying something like "I motion to table this" is not sufficient, since "tabling" is a RL term that is not used in our legislature. The RL definition can also not be relied upon, since it has opposite meanings depending on which side of the Atlantic Ocean you're on. In this matter, the Speaker acted correctly according to the RA Rules and did not deviate from the Standing Procedures.

It is worth noting that it is within the Speaker's power to end debate on a proposal unilaterally, if it could be reasonably perceived to be contrary to the best interests of the region to allow debate to continue. This happens very rarely. Here is the Court ruling on the subject: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7015148/#post-8084116

Romanoffia:

The point is that there is no legal basis for this recall at all.

Click to expand...

Here is the legal basis for this recall:

TNP Constitution:

5. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.

Click to expand...

For those following along in their pocket Constibillocodes, that's on page 3. There is a full stop at the end of that sentence, not a comma. The Court has repeatedly confirmed that the criteria for recalling someone from office is at the discretion of the Regional Assembly. In other words, if the motion passes, then the reasons for the recall are justified. I won't bother to list the handful of rulings where this concept is referenced. Go to the Court Rulings page and ctrl+f for "recall" if you're interested.

Romanoffia:

An angry 'mob' could easily conduct a French Style Revolution (metaphorically speaking) with nothing more than a simple majority in the RA.

Click to expand...

As can be seen from the quote from the Constitution I included above, it actually takes a 2/3 majority to recall a government official, not a simple majority.

Romanoffia:

In simple terms, the government of TNP is prone to being picked off, one by one, from any point in the organisational ladder by means of mob-rule 'recalls' and, if something is not done about preventing 'recalls' for arbitrary reasons, someone will eventually try it and actually do it. And when they do it, there will be no basis in TNP Law or Constitution to prevent them from doing, and doing it quite openly.

Click to expand...

Roman is correct that there is nothing in our system of laws that prevents government officials being removed by popular will. However, time has shown that recall motions are rare, and usually a result of inactivity or the commission of a crime. They were more common in 2013, when they usually failed. The only successful recall in the last 5 years has been the recall of Deropia last year for completely disappearing as Vice Delegate. You can verify this by typing "recall" into the search bar and checking the box that says "search titles only". But, hypothetically, let's say that by a two-thirds vote of the Regional Assembly, several government officials were removed in quick succession. That would indicate that they had lost the confidence of the citizenry, to which all government power in a democratic region is ultimately subordinate. There would then follow new elections, whereby the people would select different candidates that suited them better. I fail to see the problem.

Well, it seems every time I even try to get involved I get attacked. I can't even say what time of day it is without getting attacked for no reason other than arbitrary garbage. It is exactly this attitude in TNP why I need to get involved. I'm the one who got victimised for simply obeying every rule of the SC and somehow I am the aggressor?

Who is the next person who is going to be targeted by the current practice of 'recall'? And there will be a next person, and a next person, and next person, and so on? It's apparently easier to remove someone from office than to get elected. This 'recall' process is nothing but a sham if you can recall people for the fun of it and totally without any regard for TNP Law or Constitution. And I'm not supposed to get involved in this region? I've been here longer than some people here were alive. The very fact that you can recall anyone without any basis in the law other than the practice of recall makes a sham out of the whole system because it
delegitimises the whole system by allowing arbitrary and capricious actions.

What if you had an invader group quietly move into the region, become citizens and then join the RA. What if they quietly got a majority? What if they then passed a "Recall Everyone in The Government" vote? If you ignored the results of such a vote you would simply justify the vote results.

The fact is that there are a good number of people here that agree with me on these points but don't want to have that publicly known because they fear they will get the same type of beat-down I arbitrarily received. Someone has to stand up to this type of bullying of arbitrary targets.

Due to the resignation of Romanoffia from the Security Council, the recall motion is no longer applicable. The vote has been cancelled.

And none of these procedures were followed. It was moved to a vote before I even got any chance to actually defend myself. It just went to a vote. The decision to 'recall' apparently was already made before I had any real chance to mount any defence in the matter.

RA Rule 3 was denied by the Speaker who apparently misunderstood the use of the colloquial term 'table'. That's not the speaker's fault, though, it is the vault of everyone who ignores the intent of a statement expressed in clear terms. At least one person objected by using the term 'table' and was told that it could not be done. Have we gotten to the point that if someone uses a commonly understood term for objecting to a matter that we ignore the intent of the statement? I hope not, but this is what is going on. And then followed by a concerted effort to bully.

No, I don't think but a couple of people ever intended to listen to me, let alone even let me defend myself. The problem is there is a small class of people who aren't interested in anything but bulllying or piling on an individual.

Remember, I was the one who was recalled when absolutely no basis for it existed in TNP Law or Constitution. I obeyed the rules, did my job to the satisfaction of the requirements and got recalled for doing exactly what I was supposed to do to the letter of the law.

The Recall Genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. All one has to do is attack the character and reputation of an individual instead of concentrating on things that really matter. I have moved beyond anger into the region of utter and complete disappointment. What do I have to do to prove my point? Endorse every piece of legislation that comes down the pike and then have people vote against simply because I endorsed it and watch the whole process come to a screeching halt? (that was sarcasm and hyperbole and intended to be humorous in a dark sort of way).

Some people hear, but they don't listen. I can explain something to someone, but I can't understand it for them.

Romanoffia:

Remember, I was the one who was recalled when absolutely no basis for it existed in TNP Law or Constitution

Click to expand...

I believe COE's explanation was very clear. There is a legal basis for this recall (a 2/3 majority is required to recall any government official), so I'm a bit unsure why you keep saying otherwise.

Thank you for clearly breaking down the issue COE with references.

Crushing Our Enemies:

There is no procedure to table a motion as such - postponing continued debate indefinitely. This is the closest we have in the RA rules: To invoke this procedure, we must be in the period in between when the vote is scheduled and the vote begins. It is invoked by saying "I object to the decision of the Speaker to schedule a vote on this proposal" or equivalent. Saying something like "I motion to table this" is not sufficient, since "tabling" is a RL term that is not used in our legislature. The RL definition can also not be relied upon, since it has opposite meanings depending on which side of the Atlantic Ocean you're on. In this matter, the Speaker acted correctly according to the RA Rules and did not deviate from the Standing Procedures.

Click to expand...

I do have to point out that the Speaker effectively nullified that as a possibility by starting the vote within 10 minutes of the second motion for vote and within 5 minutes of acknowledging the motion and announcing the scheduling. I was still very much on the fence and wanted more discussion and would have used an objection to it being scheduled but literally because I went to the bathroom I was unable too. It also being 10PM EST at the time meant that a large contingent of people on this forum were turning in the night or were already asleep.

I really don't like how that happens it gives me the same bitter taste in my mouth as what happened when the recall for Deropia was immediately opened and even then there was time to object as it was after an override of the objection.

Lord Lore:

I do have to point out that the Speaker effectively nullified that as a possibility by starting the vote within 10 minutes of the second motion for vote and within 5 minutes of acknowledging the motion and announcing the scheduling. I was still very much on the fence and wanted more discussion and would have used an objection to it being scheduled but literally because I went to the bathroom I was unable too. It also being 10PM EST at the time meant that a large contingent of people on this forum were turning in the night or were already asleep.

I really don't like how that happens it gives me the same bitter taste in my mouth as what happened when the recall for Deropia was immediately opened and even then there was time to object as it was after an override of the objection.

Click to expand...

Yeah I definitely think the Speaker rushed it. I would need to take a check but I don't think Speaker can schedule a vote right after the motion for a vote according to the Standing Procedures unless the Citizens move for a early scheduling.

Dinoium:

Yeah I definitely think the Speaker rushed it. I would need to take a check but I don't think Speaker can schedule a vote right after the motion for a vote according to the Standing Procedures unless the Citizens move for a early scheduling.

Click to expand...

Non-legislative proposals do not have a defined period between the motion for a vote (and its second) and the proposal going to vote. Some Speakers schedule two days out to allow for objections but they are by no means required to, and nothing in the SP recommends they do so.

Edit: To be clear I support having a minimum amount of time (hence why I personally always scheduled two days out), but there is no current requirement to do so.

Romanoffia:

RA Rule 3 was denied by the Speaker who apparently misunderstood the use of the colloquial term 'table'. That's not the speaker's fault, though, it is the vault of everyone who ignores the intent of a statement expressed in clear terms. At least one person objected by using the term 'table' and was told that it could not be done. Have we gotten to the point that if someone uses a commonly understood term for objecting to a matter that we ignore the intent of the statement?

Click to expand...

As COE said, "table" has opposite meanings on either side of the Atlantic - it would therefore be a very bad idea for the Speaker to be expected to interpret the meaning of colloquial terms not actually laid out in TNP procedure or law. For the British, a motion to table is a motion to hold a vote, not a motion to end debate and prevent a vote, as the American usage holds. If I motion to table under the British sense, and you second under the American sense... the poor speaker has no reasonable course of action to follow.

Additionally, motioning that the speaker cancel a scheduled vote is not synonymous with the American motion to table - a cancelled vote can be brought again with another motion, or forced to start immediately by a slightly larger number of citizens. Under an American motion to table, on the other hand, the item under consideration is completely removed from consideration.

Remember, I was the one who was recalled when absolutely no basis for it existed in TNP Law or Constitution. I obeyed the rules, did my job to the satisfaction of the requirements and got recalled for doing exactly what I was supposed to do to the letter of the law.

Click to expand...

Since you keep reiterating this point, I feel compelled to ask: In what ways would you say that you have "done your job" as a member of the Security Council? I do not contest that you have met the minimum influence and endorsement requirements, but the data that we have seen indicates that it is the Vice Delegate, not you, who has been primarily doing the work of making sure you continue to meet those requirements. So, aside from logging into your nation enough to keep it from CTEing, and posting on the forum enough to avoid vacating your role on the SC (which I will concede as given), what part of your duties as an SC member have you personally shouldered over the past two and a half years?

King SillyString:

As COE said, "table" has opposite meanings on either side of the Atlantic - it would therefore be a very bad idea for the Speaker to be expected to interpret the meaning of colloquial terms not actually laid out in TNP procedure or law. For the British, a motion to table is a motion to hold a vote, not a motion to end debate and prevent a vote, as the American usage holds. If I motion to table under the British sense, and you second under the American sense... the poor speaker has no reasonable course of action to follow.

Click to expand...

Huh... I thought it was the other way around. I'm American, and I thought to table a proposal means to bring it to a vote. I suppose I have heard it both ways... which only further proves your point.

You said it right there - I did exactly what I was required to do and met every requirement of activity, endorsement level, etc.,,,. Is that a problem for you?

It's not a matter of what I have shouldered in the past two years. You seem to forget that I was the one and only person who actually became a Caretaker Delegate and worked to pass on the Delegacy to the proper occupant of that position. Remember, I am the only one to have accomplished this to date. And that was only because McMasterdonia trusted me enough to accomplish this task when he resigned as Delegate.

Now, suddently, the usual suspects engage in a total sham just to be able to pile on Roman for no reason whatsoever. I have no clue what you have against me that drives you constantly try to prove that you can beat up on someone. I have no clue why you take anything I say or do personally or automatically gain-say anything I say. Nothing personal here, but you make yourself look like a bully. And I am not going to waste any more breath addressing or responding to that assessment.

Now, let me fill you in on something that you are totally unaware of - there were a number of 'well respected' TNPers who are still here who were begging me to refuse to relinquish the Delegacy and did so via PM on the forum, etc. Did I do that? No. Obviously. The thought never even crossed my mind. Maybe I should publish those downloaded forum PMs and screenshots to a third party site so as to not violate any of the precious rules. It would be a supreme eye opener for all. Done sarcastically or not, the lack of any sense of humour around here would simply make this region explode.

As for 'shouldering responsibility,' would certain people even let me do that at all? I think not. I get kicked to the curb-side when there is no immediate use for me that doesn't serve someone else's agenda at a given time. If I have one fault, it is being utterly loyal and willing to go the whole nine yards for this region, even if it is largely for someone who thinks I'm a piece of trash for no reason at all. You will never find anyone more loyal to TNP that I. You can bet your life on that.

And what do I get for that? Bullied, beat on, harassed at times, held up to unwarranted ridicule and abuse. The only consolation I get is that I was here before 99.99% of you and I will be here after 99.99% of you are gone. And that irks the usual suspects.

Romanoffia:

You said it right there - I did exactly what I was required to do and met every requirement of activity, endorsement level, etc.,,,. Is that a problem for you?

Click to expand...

So... the only thing you can say that you've done over the past 2.5 years is log into your nation at least once every couple of months, and post on the forum at least once every couple of weeks? That's not a terribly compelling argument.

I can't give you credit for your endorsement count when it was somebody else's work that got you those endorsements. Yes, you were in line with the minimum requirements - but you didn't have any part in staying that way.

Did I mention that I am thoroughly enjoying this all? By the time I am done, the bullies will be humiliated.

@King SillyString

So... the only thing you can say that you've done over the past 2.5 years is log into your nation at least once every couple of months, and post on the forum at least once every couple of weeks? That's not a terribly compelling argument.

I can't give you credit for your endorsement count when it was somebody else's work that got you those endorsements. Yes, you were in line with the minimum requirements - but you didn't have any part in staying that way.

Click to expand...

First suspect.

Why do you hate me so much? Why is your animosity for me so strong? Please tell me. Have at it. Enquiring minds want to know.

Look, you can try to turn this into a pity party if you really want, but it's not really passing the sniff test. All you have to do to change my mind is explain what part of your job as an SCer you have been doing for 2.5 years.

You haven't been maintaining your endorsement count or influence level - the Vice Delegate has been doing that for you. You haven't been participating in the endoswapping of the WADP, which exists to boost TNP security. You haven't been sending regional telegrams promoting endorsing the delegate or vice delegate to boost their numbers, another key element of TNP security. You haven't participated in SC drills, which exist to gauge SC response time in the event an emergency occurs.

And yet, you maintain that you have been doing your job as an SCer - and so I am asking, how? What does that mean? What does it look like? What have you been doing?

Oh, and the animosity continues. You are whipping a dead horse and you know it.

You have exposed yourself as one of the usual suspects. What are you going to do next? Use your admin power to silence legitimate criticism? Go ahead. It will only prove my point.

Nothing personal here, but your behaviour in this matter needs to be exposed and held up to the general public for all to see.

Sooo... Just going to go on not answering the question then?

K.

Ok. Nope I’m done. I am locking this thread to further discussion. The recall is no longer valid since Roman resigned. This discussion @Romanoffia about you being bullied and such can happen outside of the Regional Assembly forums, unless you intend to bring legislation forward.

There has been enough mud flung in this thread and the discussion is going nowhere.

As a note, if anyone has an issue with this thread being locked feel free to contact me directly about it.