On the Proposition of Recalling Robespierre from the Office of Vice Delegate

So those against, could you please provide an instance or line that you would consider to warrant a recall of an elected official. I dont mean that they did something procedurally wrong, but I am talking in terms of character and the way they carry themselves. TNP is very good at keeping people privy to the legal apparatus, but I want to see some developed thought about behavior of officials.
 
If the Vice Delegate obviously attempted to overtake the Delegate in endorsements, or if they stopped endotarting for more than a couple weeks (thus not doing their job), or if they took information from secure areas and disclosed it to an adversarial region, or if a Minister made their deputies do all the work and delegation while they themselves did nothing, or if a Speaker stopped doing Speaker checks (again, thus not doing their job)... notice how all of this is job-related.
 
Last edited:
If the Vice Delegate obviously attempted to overtake the Delegate in endorsements, or if they stopped endotarting for more than a couple weeks (thus not doing their job), or if they took information from secure areas and disclosed it to an adversarial region, or if a Minister made their deputies do all the work and delegation while they themselves did nothing, or if a Speaker stopped doing Speaker checks (again, thus not doing their job)... notice how all of this is job-related.
Those are all procedural wrongdoings which I intentionally excluded in my post.
 
Those are all procedural wrongdoings which I intentionally excluded in my post.
Well then you have your answer.

Edit: Let me make it clearer. An out-of-character action does not warrant an in-character penalty. Holding the Vice Delegacy is an in-character job. Being elected to it is not supposed to be a reward for good out-of-character community participation. The only way in which an OOC offense should cause the loss of an IC position is if the OOC penalty, such as a forum ban, makes it impossible to perform the IC job. If they were forum banned, they couldn't be the chair of the SC and manage threads and votes in the SC section. They can't do their job, so they get recalled. What you're trying to do is blend the two together. There's a reason we don't do it. It's just like how we separate forum administration from regional government, unlike some other regions out there.

Being here, on this forum, is being part of a gaming community. We all play NationStates. Holding the Vice Delegacy is playing the game itself. It's like, in MMOs, you don't fire your guild's raid group healer because they got a ticket for reckless driving outside of the game. You fire them because they suck at healing. That doesn't mean you kick them out of the guild.
 
Last edited:
The issue is that politics of any kind always include a judgement of character. Saying that TNP is devoid of that aspect I think is problematic. Making judgements about the candidates' behavior, attitude, and actions that are not procedural in nature is a part of political deliberation in general. I was asked if My Catholicism would make me biased during my court run. I could have argued that such an inquiry is OOC and not relevant, but I didn't because it is a valid question based on my person which inevitably affects how I interact in the game. Honestly, this line seems to be invoked and defined in any way that is beneficial to the person using it at the time, and I find that problematic. You can bet that I as a citizen see it is my duty to hold elected officials accountable not only to their on paper jobs, but how they contribute and act in the community as a whole. The person and the job cannot be so easily separated as many of you are trying to do, and I would ask you to take a second look at your statements. Regardless, I am very much determined to bring this to a vote so that the voters and their choices can be enshrined in TNP's history to be once again looked back upon in the future when this issue inevitably arises again.

P.S. That was not a motion to vote, but a statement of my intent in the future.
 
I do not think that I would be minded to vote for recall if this is proceeds to vote.

I do agree with the idea that out of conduct is relevant to whether a person should have a role in character. It seems to me that there is a continuity between a person out of the game and in the game and that requires some account to be taken of out of character behaviour.

However, the offence we are concerned with was one which led to a ban from discord for seven days. I do not think that that rises to the level of seriousness where it should be considered disqualifying. I am not going to be drawn into setting down a firm line on what would reach that level of seriousness, nor do I see that it is necessary to do so, given that it would seem always to be so fact specific.
 
As with Asta, I'm going to take a stance and say that I will vote against this motion if it comes to a vote.
 
I don't know whether I should be supportive of such a motion. While I find the OOC actions unacceptable of a government official, I doubt an IC recall would be the answer, considering that the vice-delegate did fulfil his duties as a vice-delegate to a large extent. If anything, I would take this into account for a re-election campaign if Robes do wish to run for a second term. The punishment for the action as stated in the OP has been given, and we should let the matter rest.
 
If anything, I would be more willing to consider a recall based on Robespierre performance as Vice Delegate: nowhere near close to the in-game position of Vice Delegate and not fulfilling promises he made during his campaign.

However, based on the arguments presented, I am against a recall. The rationale presented is insufficient and I think can be disregarded considering that the OP did not propose a recall of a government official banned from TNP General for four times longer than the Vice Delegate (not that I would support a recall of Bob either).

I am rather surprised by Robespierre reaction to this all and the lack of an apology was rather interesting.
 
"...misleading another player about aspects of his personal life and for attempting to contact an individual after being blocked. ..."
What is meant by 'misleading another player'? Why was he blocked? What did he attempt to contact the individual with? I don't feel these kinds of questions have been considered like they should. The circumstances and details surrounding Robespierre's actions are undisclosed and this motion seems to have been hastily thrown out there without a proper look at the details.

In Robespierre's statement, he recognized a mistake was made on his part, has fully owned up to the mistake, and has seemingly been fully cooperative with TNP's moderation. I do acknowledge the lack of apology by Robespierre, however I feel an apology wouldn't do justice to the mistakes made like owning up to and correcting them would. If anyone is to receive an apology it should be the other individual involved in the incident, not the Regional Assembly. Additionally, the temporary ban on Discord is not stopping the Vice Delegate from continuing his phenomenal dedication to this region and the region's security. I don't believe we ought to recall a Vice Delegate over an isolated incident which does not affect the region or undermine the duties of the Vice Delegate and Security Council.

Robespierre has done a phenomenal job as Vice Delegate, and I believe he will continue to do great work. It would be utterly insane to sack a Vice Delegate with the potential, the dedication, and the spirit that Robespierre demonstrates. With that said, I am staunchly opposed to this motion and will vote against it should it come to a vote.
 
Why an individual chose to block another player is not something that the administration team should be disclosing (and given their prior posts on the matter, they fortunately will not be). The other individual involved has a right to privacy in whatever the incident that happened was.

I question your characterization of Robespierre doing a phenomenal job as Vice Delegate given that he is nowhere near close to assuming the in-game position of Vice Delegate nor do I recall him presenting any fantastic changes or the whatnot to the office.
 
Separation of moderation and government is essential and breaking that separation would set a bad precedent. I fully intend to vote against this motion if it comes to a vote.
 
I considered not commenting given my unique position as the Delegate and a forum administrator, however given the significance of this I have decided that it is worth weighing in.

Personally, I disagree with the notion presented by some that OOC matters such as moderation should be entirely separate from in-character matters.

My view is that they are relevant, deeply relevant, to how someone may perform their responsibilities. Whenever we cast our ballots, we are making a judgement call about that individuals ability to perform the in-character responsibilities. What is relevant to this, is their OOC abilities to handle it. Personally I consider whether an individual is intellectually, morally, and temperamentally suitable to hold that office. As any office holder will tell you, there will come a time when you will face an unexpected crisis or incident, where the individuals OOC temperament, judgement and character will be crucial to proper management of that situation. As such, I personally would consider an individuals warn level - both on NationStates and on this forum to be relevant to my decision to vote for them (or not). Particularly when their role is so closely tied to their nation.

Secondly, if you have your own reasons for voting for it, that is fine, even if they are not the same reasons as that proposed by the individual making the initial motion.

Finally, with respect to this particular matter, I note that Robespierre has handled this particularly maturely, as evidenced by the acceptance of responsibility and the posting in this thread. He engaged with the moderation team properly, fairly and maturely. When we consider this against how others have handled moderation matters in the past, or even court rulings, I believe this bodes well for his temperament and the sense of gravity with which he has treated this situation. Ultimately I think Robes' has made a judgement call that he wishes to continue in his role and learn from these mistakes. If you believe that is the wrong call, then perhaps a conversation with Robes about your concerns is in order, before this recall motion is pursued further.
 
Can I just say, for those of you who disagree with me, McM's answer is how you oppose me in a beneficial way. He was able to speak my language and still disagree on reasonable grounds.
 
...McM's answer is how you oppose me in a beneficial way....

...which is a completely biased response given that McM basically threw you a bone by agreeing with you in some aspect. I disagree with McM (in part) and you (entirely), for reasons I've already stated, and so there is no possible way for my commentary to be "beneficial" to you.

That being said, if we're looking at this from a perspective of whether this incident interferes with the ability of the Vice Delegate to perform their job, I feel that it doesn't, at least not yet, and therefore does not necessitate a recall. Now, it certainly may impact my willingness to vote for Robespierre in the future (not that I ever did... I voted for Artemis in the last election), but we are still a month and a half from that situation.

If you want to convince me otherwise, show me how this incident impacts Robes's ability to hold the delegacy for the two weeks maximum in which either a special election is held or the scheduled term ends and the normal election begins.
 
Last edited:
...which is a completely biased response given that McM basically threw you a bone by agreeing with you in some aspect.

Well tossing Wonderess a bone is a new one indeed. You of all people should know that Wonderess does not need anyone to throw him a bone, to assert such is really asinine, and if that was my motivation that would be really quite perplexing :tb1:

Wondo has demonstrated consistently that he is perfectly willing to create his own hill to die on, and to pursue laws, motions and campaigns that have little hope of succeeding. Wondo desires no bone from anyone. Believe me, I am the expert on bones. I wrote the book on it. Nonetheless, my comment was not to throw him a bone but to explain my own stance on this proposal.... which I note was not really addressed either :).

To view this differently, as a Security Councillor, unless your nation gets deleted from the region by the NS moderators or you started flaming people in the Regional Assembly (although in Romanoffia's case we saw even that wasn't enough for some SCers to support his removal), most nations are unlikely to have any idea of the OOC temperament, judgement, or ability of any of the Security Councillors. Whereas extremely poor OOC judgement and actions by the Delegate and/or Vice Delegate is more likely to have an immediate impact.

However if as an SCer you started to constantly flame nations in OOC political debates on the regional message board, that would be a problem. Flaming is an out of character action that you may not be participating in as a Security Councillor, but the in-character consequences could be the severe undermining of the Security Council, the destabilisation of the region, a growth in the lack of trust for the institution you serve etc... Those are in-character consequences for out of character actions.

I also believe that OOC matters such as temperament and judgement has always been relevant to deciding who should serve in the line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate. There is a reason Great Bights Mum was always so high up on this list and Romanoffia was not (though perhaps not the only reason...).

Your points however are quite similar to GBM, which she outlined below:

I disagree with that statement. Historically, the RA recalls government officials based on shortcomings in job performance. OOC considerations are a separate matter altogether. They have to be separated. We wouldn't want the moderation team to be making decisions based on regional politics. By the same token, we do not need our assembly to concern itself with the number of warning points a particular player has. One thing has little to do with the other.

I think GBM is absolutely correct that IC powers that be should not be determining OOC punishments. It would be completely inappropriate for the Delegate to be imposing warnings for flaming on people he/she disagreed with, or to be banning forum users for whatever reason they chose etc. It would be completely inappropriate for moderators to be factoring in political fall out into their decision making (eg This person is too popular to ban!). That much is true.

But out of character actions can matter, particularly in higher office. It demonstrates your judgement, your ability to make rational decisions, and whether or not you can put the community first ahead of your personal needs or grievances. What also matters is your intent, how you respond to the criticism (or punishment), and how maturely you engage with the fact that you have been called out and made serious mistakes. It would not be appropriate to make a blanket statement that out of character matters are never relevant for in-character political decision making. I firmly believe that there is always that line where they do become relevant, particularly with elections, and particularly in relation to ability to continuing ability to perform in the role.

Otherwise, as a hypothetical, are we really to believe that if someone commits a very bad OOC action (for instance pornspamming) that we would say - OK well that was OOC, it is totally fine for them to continue as an IC office holder? Even though that could put the community at risk? I am not saying that applies in this particular case... but how we frame our discussion on this subject does matter. I do not think it is reasonable, realistic or accurate to suggest that OOC considerations are an entirely separate or irrelevant consideration to public office.



I also note the assertion earlier in the thread that the Administrators/Moderators responsible for the ban would have pursued a recall if we had believed in it. I think this is an incorrect assumption as that would be a conflict of interest and may require a moderator to disclose more than they are willing to do. I find it incredibly unlikely that an Administrator or Moderator would introduce said motion, at most, some may vote for it, but that would be the extent of it. Gorundu perhaps says it best:

<snip>

To everyone who said an admin or mod would have initiated the motion if it was serious enough, you can see that several admins/mods have already chosen to abstain from the discussion and vote. The reason's pretty obvious. They don't want to be seen as using their moderation authority to influence a political matter. They've done their job, and it's up to us to decide if has happened warrants a recall.

I remain against with respect to this recall based on Robespierre's response to this thread and his demonstrated maturity in handling the punishment. I am responding however, for the sake of debate and for offering a complete picture of why in my view, OOC matters are often relevant to IC decision making.
 
I will be voting against but will certainly take this this matter into consideration again should Robes run for office in the next election.
 
For those of you who have been actively trying to slander my name, saying I am openly encouraging to "oust the Vice Delegate," please keep in mind that I have made my stance clear that I intend to vote against this proposal and intend to keep Robespierre in office.
 
Wow, McM. Thank you for that post. So well thought-out, and really spot-on. I try to learn something new every day, and today this was it.

I'd just like to add a few words about TNP's culture. We are charitable and forgiving. Great Bight, under another nation, turned out to be a fine Prime Minister when I was delegate. GM, post Pixiedance, was excellent on the bench. We've always been good about giving people second chances.
 
For those of you who have been actively trying to slander my name, saying I am openly encouraging to "oust the Vice Delegate," please keep in mind that I have made my stance clear that I intend to vote against this proposal and intend to keep Robespierre in office.
Can you direct me to where this happened?
 
For those of you who have been actively trying to slander my name, saying I am openly encouraging to "oust the Vice Delegate," please keep in mind that I have made my stance clear that I intend to vote against this proposal and intend to keep Robespierre in office.
This thread is not about you. Stop being an attention seeker, Crown Isles.
 
For those of you who have been actively trying to slander my name, saying I am openly encouraging to "oust the Vice Delegate," please keep in mind that I have made my stance clear that I intend to vote against this proposal and intend to keep Robespierre in office.
Such people misremembered your stance, and such comments stopped once I pointed out your previous comment that predated those comments in the citizens chat on discord.
 
I've decided that I won't be pursuing this motion further, and will not call for a vote, though I found this conversation on the matter beneficial nonetheless.
 
Back
Top