Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Welcome to The Rejected Realms

Government:

Delegate: Wabbitslayah
Officer: Frattastan (Foreign Affairs)
Officer: Marilyn Manson Freaks (Outreach)
Officer: PowerPAOK (Media)
Officer: Relfa (Culture)

Other Officials:

Speaker: Vulturret
RRA High Commander: Frattastan
RRA Commander: Guy
RRA Commander: Wopruthien
Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
[DRAFT] Articles of Impeachment
Topic Started: May 25 2011, 04:28 PM (676 Views)
Oliver Dion
Member Avatar
Dedicated
Quote:
 
RECOGNIZING the work and effort put into the Founderless Regions Alliance by Archchancellor Unibot, but

CONCERNED with a number of decisions and attitudes taken and expressed by the Archchancellor,

NOTING SPECIFICALLY

The Rogue Delegate Policy -- Introduced without consulting the only game-created region which the Alliance counts as a member. This policy stands in stark opposition to the founding principles of the Alliance; namely that the Alliance would stand in opposition to invasion, defined as an external threat, but would remain neutral in the case of a civil war or internal coup. We believe that the application of this policy in the South Pacific was unacceptable because the policy itself is unacceptable.

Continued Disrespect for a Member Region -- In addition to the introduction of a rogue delegate policy without consulting the only game-created regional member of the Alliance, Unibot has, through careless actions, continued to show disrespect for the Rejected Realms. Unibot ejected and banned two prominent citizens of the Rejected Realms from the Alliance's IRC channel, without taking the time to ask them politely to leave, and accepted responsibility for the ejection and ban of another citizen of the Rejected Realms. His apology to all three members was considered to be backhanded and insincere, especially with regards to the insulting epithet used for one member's name.

The Rejected Realms feels that Archchancellor Unibot, in apologizing for a hasty and ill-conceived act, has demonstrated again his tendency to act without fully taking the time to appreciate the consequences, for himself and for the image of the FRA.

Breach Of FRA Law -- Archchancellor Unibot in this post on the NationStates official forums, delivered a statement on behalf of the Alliance without seeking, as dictated by the Policy on Statements requiring that the Archchancellor "inform the Regional Assembly of his intent no less than 24 hours prior to the statement being released." On the authority of the Rejected Realm's Regional Assembly Representative, no such information was given prior to the release of the statement in question.

BELIEVING that these examples show a disconcerting tendency to act quickly without regard for the consequences, and recognizing that, when coupled with other ill-conceived actions in the vein of posting FRA Ranger recruitment messages on foreign forums, these examples tend to provide a negative image, not just of the Archchancellor, but of the Alliance as a whole,

THE REJECTED REALMS, as member of the Founderless Regions Alliance, hereby calls for the impeachment of Archchancellor Unibot.


Please feel free to suggest changes. This was drafted with the assistance of all who were on the TRR IRC at the time.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Northern Chittowa
Member Avatar
Regular
I have a few points.
Quote:
 
The Rogue Delegate Policy -- Introduced without consulting the only game-created region which the Alliance counts as a member. This policy stands in stark opposition to the founding principles of the Alliance; namely that the Alliance would stand in opposition to invasion, defined as an external threat, but would remain neutral in the case of a civil war or internal coup. We believe that the application of this policy in the South Pacific was unacceptable because the policy itself is unacceptable.


Actually, as the author of the bill in question, this wouldn’t be Uni’s fault. Indeed, it was put up for debate in the RA on April 16th and went to vote on April 26th. During that time there was a four page discussion regarding it by members of the alliance, within the legislative body of the alliance. If I am right Wop, as one of your reps posted in the debate topic, while both of your reps actually voted when it was put up for vote –Wop voted nay, Fel voted Aye. TRR therefore was consulted about this change, as its reps did take part either in the vote or the discussion. If they failed to represent the region, then that is the failure of TRR’s reps, not the FRA’s nor that of Uni’s.

Also, the founding principle of the FRA is thus, as outlined by the Charter;

Quote:
 
The Founderless Regions Alliance is an organization founded upon the principles of sovereignty and freedom of all regions in NationStates. We endeavour to protect regions from the menace of aggression and imperialism and we pledge to work tirelessly to that end.


So while you don’t have a case when arguing that the FRA is acting in contrast of its founding principles via standing only in opposition to an invasion, you would have a leg to stand on if you argued that its current ‘Rouge Feeder Delegate Policy’ is infringing upon the sovereignty of its member regions/of other regions by enforcing it. Should make for an interesting debate.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
Quote:
 
Breach Of FRA Law -- Archchancellor Unibot in this post on the NationStates official forums, delivered a statement on behalf of the Alliance without seeking, as dictated by the Policy on Statements requiring that the Archchancellor "inform the Regional Assembly of his intent no less than 24 hours prior to the statement being released." On the authority of the Rejected Realm's Regional Assembly Representative, no such information was given prior to the release of the statement in question.


The statement said that it "at least" represented the view of the Arch-Chancellor office, it did not claim to have the Regional Assembly's seal of approval. Under the Rogue Delegate Act, my cabinet had the authority to order the intervention of the South Pacific -- and I stand by this intervention as the right thing to do. Any member-region opposition would have been most appropriately addressed in the Regional Assembly with a vote to withdraw intervention as mandated by the Rogue Delegate Act.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Whamabama
Member Avatar
Questionably Evil
A member region should not have to run to the FRA forums every night to see if they need to try to get the FRA to stay out of a regions inner problems.

Also it's a bit much to expect this would even be possible. Not everyone is watching every feeder, or the FRA forums.
Edited by Whamabama, May 26 2011, 02:40 AM.
Those who don't create, dictate
The structure of our world and preach hate
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Oliver Dion
Member Avatar
Dedicated
unibot
May 26 2011, 02:16 AM
Quote:
 
Breach Of FRA Law -- Archchancellor Unibot in this post on the NationStates official forums, delivered a statement on behalf of the Alliance without seeking, as dictated by the Policy on Statements requiring that the Archchancellor "inform the Regional Assembly of his intent no less than 24 hours prior to the statement being released." On the authority of the Rejected Realm's Regional Assembly Representative, no such information was given prior to the release of the statement in question.

The statement said that it "at least" represented the view of the Arch-Chancellor office, it did not claim to have the Regional Assembly's seal of approval. Under the Rogue Delegate Act, my cabinet had the authority to order the intervention of the South Pacific -- and I stand by this intervention as the right thing to do. Any member-region opposition would have been most appropriately addressed in the Regional Assembly with a vote to withdraw intervention as mandated by the Rogue Delegate Act.
When you match the action to your words, it clearly becomes the action of the FRA, based on your words. The FRA's actions embody your words, in this instance. To claim that you didn't speak for the Alliance as a whole, but that you would embroil the Alliance in such an action on your words and the words of your cabinet alone distresses me. Are you the head of this organization, with all the responsibility that that implies, or not?

What I am saying, to put it bluntly and clearly, is that as the head of the FRA, your actions and statements all represent the Alliance. To speak for yourself is one thing, but to match that speech with the aggressive action of the Alliance's military force makes your words carry more weight than a personal bloody comment.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
unibot
May 26 2011, 02:16 AM
The statement said that it "at least" represented the view of the Arch-Chancellor office, it did not claim to have the Regional Assembly's seal of approval.
The Policy on Statements (link here) says:
Quote:
 
Expecting that should the Arch Chancellor wish to issue a statement he must inform the Regional Assembly of his intent no less than 24 hours prior to the statement being released.

It explicitly refers to the AC releasing statements, because of the trouble that Falconias caused when AC. I'm afraid that's as clear a violation of the policy as is possible.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Biyah
Member Avatar
High Priest of the Cult
I like it, no changes necessary from my point of view.
Edited by Biyah, May 26 2011, 05:47 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
sedge
May 26 2011, 02:47 AM
unibot
May 26 2011, 02:16 AM
The statement said that it "at least" represented the view of the Arch-Chancellor office, it did not claim to have the Regional Assembly's seal of approval.
The Policy on Statements (link here) says:
Quote:
 
Expecting that should the Arch Chancellor wish to issue a statement he must inform the Regional Assembly of his intent no less than 24 hours prior to the statement being released.

It explicitly refers to the AC releasing statements, because of the trouble that Falconias caused when AC. I'm afraid that's as clear a violation of the policy as is possible.
However, the Rogue-Delegate policy permits the sanctioning for intervention by the cabinet -- the purpose of this is to speed up the process for emergencies such as dangerous situations like the quick destabilization in TSP. If the declaration of sanction is required by the RA, this essentially negates the time saved with the emergency clauses of the Rogue-Delegate in practice. In theory, however, the FRA rangers could intervene in a feeder without a public explanation -- but that would cause even more outrage, because now we would have a publicly unjustified intervention. I interpreted the "sanction intervention", broadly to include a public statement not a private sanction -- overriding usual policy would make sense seeing as how the Rogue-Delegacy policy is an emergency policy that exists to litigate unusual situations like feeder coups requiring intervention.

If the RR does not support this interpretation, I would recommend consigning one of your representatives to posting your own interpretation for an amendment to the Rogue-Delegate act in the Regional Assembly, which would include if sanctions are to be private sanctions or public sanctions -- because even if you do impeach me, this will still remain as an ambiguous clause for my successors to interpret differently.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
Actually, we intend to repeal the Rogue Delegate act, or at least replace it with what was in place previously.
Edited by sedge, May 26 2011, 09:38 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
Well, that's interesting considering it passed with well more than a super-majority and still remains non-controversial outside of the RR even with the TSP intervention (which has been widely supported once again outside of the RR), but nevertheless, the Regional Assembly can always use the activity and appreciates a difference of opinions.

However, even if you repeal it, my statement (which still only explicitly represented my own views, not that of the appointed representatives collective) will be grandfathered by the extant legislation at the time. Unless you plan on making this a retroactive repeal -- which is one, questionable, but applicable avenue you could explore.
Edited by unibot, May 26 2011, 09:58 PM.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
No. The policy on statements is a law that you clearly violated. You can say all you like about the rogue delegate policy, but nowhere within it does it allow you to violate the policy on statements.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
sedge
May 26 2011, 10:34 PM
No. The policy on statements is a law that you clearly violated. You can say all you like about the rogue delegate policy, but nowhere within it does it allow you to violate the policy on statements.
That is clearly interpretable, and as emergency policy, it does override many usual policies.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Northern Chittowa
Member Avatar
Regular
unibot
May 26 2011, 11:14 PM
sedge
May 26 2011, 10:34 PM
No. The policy on statements is a law that you clearly violated. You can say all you like about the rogue delegate policy, but nowhere within it does it allow you to violate the policy on statements.
That is clearly interpretable, and as emergency policy, it does override many usual policies.
Interesting viewpoint, where have you got that from?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
sedge
Member Avatar
Admin Slave
The Policy on Statements was passed first. When writing your rogue delegate policy, you should've taken into account that existing law, and made clear there was an exemption from it, if that is what you wanted. You didn't, and thus I can only conclude there is no exemption.

For reference, here's the entire Rogue Delegate Policy:

Quote:
 
Rogue Delegate Policy.

Preamble.

The Rangers will have the power, upon the support of the Regional Assembly as set out in Section B and the FRA Charter, to intervene in regions (Feeders, Sinkers or Userite) should a Rogue Delegate be identified.

Section A.

1. A Rogue Delegate is defined as one whose domestic regional policies and actions are characterized by a self-destructive intent in regards to a region, unless these actions or policies are sanctioned by a legitimate authority.

2. These policies include, but are not limited to; reduction of government, loss of political enfranchisement, denial of freedom of assembly or speech and admin masking on the forums.

Section B.

1. Should it become apparent that a Rogue Delegate is in place and there is significant evidence to support such a conclusion, the Cabinet may sanction intervention in said region by the FRA Rangers once a request from the legitimate government or majority native support from the region in question has been received.

2. The validity of this sanction shall last only as long as the legitimate government or majority native support requests it, or the Regional Assembly votes in favour of removing support for intervention as outlined in Section C.

Section C.

1. At any time during the action a member of the RA may bring a motion to remove RA support for the action.

2. Such a motion will follow the established rules as outlined in the FRA Charter, Article 2-V.


Section B.1 is the part that does something. I see it allows "intervention". I don't see is allowing statements to be released, or any exemption from the policy on statements.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Northern Chittowa
Member Avatar
Regular
Uni
 
If the declaration of sanction is required by the RA, this essentially negates the time saved with the emergency clauses of the Rogue-Delegate in practice. In theory, however, the FRA rangers could intervene in a feeder without a public explanation -- but that would cause even more outrage, because now we would have a publicly unjustified intervention


...I don't think that's what Sedge meant. Under current FRA law you are allowed, upon Cabinet approval to intervene, however should you then decide that a statement is needed to justify this action (which of course it will be) then you are required to inform the RA about your intent to do so, regardless of whether it is more of a personal statement or not.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic »
Locked Topic