 |
| |
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
REPORT: ILLEGAL MPPs SIGNED DURING CHAT 
The following events are what I've been able to re-construct so far from talking to people who were present (and my own knowledge from looking at the save and being there for 1250 A.D. and putting up a huge stink in order to make sure the chat ended...).
THE EVENTS AS THEY OCCURED
- Due to unforseen events, I had to be absent at much of the turnchat this evening (family issues...).
- During the chat, Rome invaded our territory and then declared war.
- When Rome declared war, apparently there was discussion in the chat over what to do. The decision was made to go on with the chat. Apparently, the participants in the chat agreed that Rome declaring war on us was not a "national emergency" as outlined in the Constitution since war with Germany was already 2 turns away and war with multiple powers had already been planned for. The line in the FAM orders about how the chat should probably end if any power declared war on us was apparently either overlooked, ignored, or overruled.
- It was discovered that Rome had MPPs with Japan, Russia, and England. The suggestion was made that Apolytonia should match each of these MPPs in order to make these powers declare war on Rome (when Rome attacked us) rather than on us (when we later attacked Rome).
- Almost immediately after this suggestion was brought up, the question was asked whether it would be legal to do this during the chat. Apparently, someone did notice the line in my orders (marked in bold) which stated that MPPs other than those authorized by the Senate were illegal. The question was asked as to whether "the bill [regarding alliances]" had been passed. That question was answered in the afirmative. It should be noted here that no-one went to go actually read the bill.
- It was apparently assumed by the participants in the chat that "the bill" gave the administration a blank check to sign any and all MPPs it desired to do so. In reality, the actual bill only authorized MPPs with Greece, the Aztecs, and England.
- Legal MPPs were signed with Greece and England
- Illegal MPPs were signed with Japan and Russia
- Apolytonian forces attacked Roman forces. The battles were going heavily in favor of Apolytonia. We gained a victorious army in the process.
- During 1250 A.D., the FAM (that's me), returned to the chat. I was told that we were at war with Rome. I assumed that the war had probably just started. I assumed that the chat would end right then and there.
- As the battles were continuing to be fought, I raised the concern of this probably being a "national emergency" and that continuing to fight the war, especially ending the turn as desired by the President, would likely be skirting a Court case. I had no idea that the constitution had already been violated earlier in the chat...
- As I and Aggie (mostly) argued over whether or not to end the chat, it was brought to my attention that we had a mutual-protection pact with Russia. I honestly believed that this had to be a typo... I responded with something along the lines of "AN MPP WITH RUSSIA?!?!????", but no-one immediately resonded to this (I guess they must have figured I was against it philosophically... not that I was shocked due to the illegality of the pact).
- I eventually persuaded Aggie (as he posted in the save thread, with his objections) to end the chat. It was not yet known by me (for sure) that MPPs had been signed with Russia and Japan and it wasn't yet known to the other participants that these MPPs were in fact illegal.
- Now that the chat was "over" (the first thing I'd fought for), I managed to start a private channel and get some answers on the MPP mess. That's when I found out about the two illegal MPPs and I nearly went through the roof.
After that, it was mostly just a discussion between myself, E_T, and adaMada about the illegality of the MPPs and how the Senate and the Court might react to the situation.
Last edited by Arnelos on 14-12-2002 at 13:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE PROBLEMS...
PROBLEM ONE: NOT ENDING THE CHAT WHEN WAR WAS DECLARED
From the FAM orders:
quote:
If ... a civ declar[es] war on us, end the turnchat. 
|
From the Constitution:
quote:
(i) In the event of a national emergency, the President shall halt play so that the crisis can be resolved.
|
Now, Togas (who was a member of the ConCon) was apparently present and the argument was apparently made that the war with Rome did not constitute a "national emergency" because war with Germany and perhaps additional powers had already been planned for.
That said, I respectfully disagree with this assessment (as I argued when I got there). A premature war with Rome was not planned for and, as I argued in the turnchat, the Grand Alliance Authorization Bill had only authorized alliances against Germany, meaning that I had no legal authority to sign any alliances against Rome. Allowing each turn to go by w/o halting the chat just gives more time for Rome to sign alliances against us before the Senate is offered the chance to take up the issue of whether it wants to sign alliances against Rome. Furthermore, it was clearly indicated in the request for orders for this turnchat that orders would only go up to the time for declaring war and that the chat would end with the start of the war or perhaps only the start of the turn when war would be declared Thus, when Rome declared war on us, all orders were essentially null (especially FAM orders) because they had been planned and ordered for under the assumption that the chat would end when the war started.
PROBLEM TWO: NOT READING THE BILL AND THE RESULTING ILLEGAL MPPs
From the Constitution:
quote:
5 The Senate must approve all Military Alliances, Trade Embargos, and Mutual Protection Pacts.
|
Also from the Constitution:
quote:
3 No Executive may make an Order that violates or changes the Constitution, or any other existing law or Judicial decision.
|
From the line in the bill concerning Mutual Protection Pacts (emphasis mine):
quote:
...the Foreign Affairs Minister is hereby empowered by the Senate ([/U]but not obligated[/U]) to form mutual protection pacts with Greece, the Aztecs, and England either before or soon after the start of hostilities with Germany.
|
You will note the absense of Japan and Russia from that list.
Given that these MPPs were signed, it is a violation of the Senate Bill, which in turn makes this action a violation of the two lines in the constitution cited above.
The idea for signing MPPs with Japan and Russia was brought up, but only in theory at first. The same person who brought it up was smart enough to immediately ask whether the "the bill [regarding MPPs]" had been passed, but was under the assumption that "the bill" gave the administration a blank check to sign any and all MPPs that it desired (a VERY incorrect assumption). This assumption was never challenged. He was apparently told that it had passed. It is important to note here that no-one present at the chat apparently had read the Senate Bill or thought to read it when this issue came up. Everyone simply assumed that the Senate Bill gave the administration a blank check.
It should also be noted that my orders made referece to the illegality of singing MPPs w/o Senate authorization and that my comment regarding the approved MPPs reads "As for ... those MPPs and military alliances which I will have obtained Senate approval for". This statement was qualified with the words "which I will have obtained Senate approval for" with good reason. If someone was confused, they should have read the Senate Bill (though I would have hoped it was read when people voted on it).
Last edited by Arnelos on 14-12-2002 at 13:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
CONSEQUENCES: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING?
The Right Thing to Do; The Wrong Way to Do It
Ultimately, though illegal these MPPs might be, the decision to sign them was (at least in my opinion) the correct geopolitical move. Thus we have something that was probably the correct decision when it comes to geopolitics, but was the wrong decision when it comes to legality under our democratic system. Democracy can be a pain sometimes, no? 
The Case Against Legal Action Against the Executive
(I guess that's a double-negative )
This was ultimately a mistake, not a intentional abrogation of the law. Legal action in this regard would also be entirely meaningless, as the administraiton leaves office within the next few days. Both the President and the Vice President were present and took part, but neither will likely be in government next term anyhow. As such, legal action against the executive(s) would be both (1) insensitive and (2) pointless.
It's Up to the Senate and/or the Court from Here
This issue is up to the Senate (it was their law which was violated) and the Court (who has the power to enforce laws) from here. For the record, I am not starting legal action to either force a cancellation of the illegal orders or to take action against the executive(s). It is my belief that this was an honest mistake and while I feel it appropriate (as well as a civic responsibility) to point this out so that we will be more careful in the future, I do not feel the need for me to start legal action over this. This is also because I wish to leave the resolution of this matter wholly within the hands of the Senate if possible (and the Court if requested by any members of the Senate).
So Senators, this is up to you now. Personally, I recommend people read what they are voting on before voting on it, as that alone might have prevented at least what I termed "PROBLEM TWO" above. As for "PROBLEM ONE", we need a universally agreed upon definition for "national emergency", as it is rather obvious that we do not have one (given the heated debate over whether to end the chat early in 1250 A.D. while we were already at war with Rome).
Last edited by Arnelos on 14-12-2002 at 13:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
What Arnelos says is true, and I didn't even take the time to review it.
I was present at part of the turnchat and failed to notice that the bill that authorized the FAM to sign MPPs was limited to only a few nations. I think all of us failed to recognize this. It was suggested by those present at the chat, after the Romans began invading us, that we should sign MPPs with their allies as a means to keep from being ambushed by their alliance. We did this at the same time as we signed the MPPs with Greece (those damned Aztecs demanded 51gpt for a MPPs, so we declined), assuming this was previously authorized.
Frankly, I feel we did the proper strategic move by nullifying the Roman alliances, but what we did was beyond the authorization of the Senate. I ask that the Senate consider if they would have authorized this action to take place. If not, I believe all of us present would humbly submit to any sanctions the Senate or The Court felt were justified.
I was not present for the entire turnchat, and I left prior to the declaration of war by Rome, but as an active participant in the decision to sign those MPPs I will accept responsibility for the decision with my fellow ministers. Hopefully this action will be understood and excused by our Senate.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002
time: 02:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
What Arnelos says is true, and I didn't even take the time to review it.
... Hopefully this action will be understood and excused by our Senate.
--Togas |
Hopefully will.
I was in the chat for a few moments, exactly when the decision to stop the chat was made. Apparently, I was kicked from Apo, and I couldn't return.
However, Arnelos is right. We should read what we vote...
On the other side, our CoL IS to be complied, but the main function of the Col is helping us to rule our nation... And, as every other similar document in the world (yes, in RL ) is full of gray areas. It's not fault of anyone, is the true nature of this kind of statement and the Democracy itself.
My suggestion: Again, Arnelos is right: There was no intention of disobey the bill, and as the correct strategic geopolitical decisions were made, the court should not take any action against the officers involved, and maybe we should start a discussion about those "gray areas" in the CoL.
Then, we should think about our real problem: the sneak attack from the Roman f#*@ing bastards and our response to that. IMO, this response should be: kill the bastards. They have to suffer the consequences of their acts.
KILL THE BASTARDS! 
Duddha, feel free to eat their babies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
THe problem is that we had (at least I had) not fully read the posted & approved bill that allowed the signing of MPP's. It turns out that the bill only approved the signing of MPP's with ONLY Greece, Aztecs & England.
So the signing of the MPP's with Japan, Russia & Iroquios was illegal under the full wording of that bill. As Arnelos has stated, It was the correct Geopolitical move to make to keep Rome at bay & to continue our plans against Germany. It just wan't right at the time.
If I had taken the time to have fully read & understand the bill, I would have called a halt to the chat. I was under the impression that the line in Arnelos's Orders about the MPP's was taking into account that the bill had not been passed as of the time of the chat and it was in error for the time of the chat.
As it was, the chat had started 1 hour late, because I was still compiling the last of the orders for that chat. Personally, I would have been very p*ssed if we had had to call a halt of the chat, after only doing just one turn, but I was under the impression that we had been basically given a 'blank check' when it had come to the MPP's. The timing was off on the signing, but better overall as we would be out from under them sooner, while the war with Germany would be concluding. If I had know of the full details of the Bill (or had even read it while in chat), I would have called a halt at the time, despite all of the work that I had put into it.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie
Sorry I took so long to respond, but I was gone for a day. Now some setting the record straight. I had read the bill and did realize that the Mpp's were not approved. However, considering the declining numbers and interest in the demogame I made a decision to proceed with the necessary MPP, since it was obvious they were needed and would be approved. The only other alternative was to call the chat after less than turn played. This was unacceptable. So I decided to enter the MPP's that were mentioned. At the time I assumed everyone knew the nations mentioned on the MPP bill and these were not them. I apologize to all in the chat who I did not mention it too, ET and Togas particularly. I was wrong in this and should have mentioned it to all. Basically I did not feel the game should be stopped for something whose resolution was common sense and believed all in the chat were of the same mind. So I took the action I did and feel that this is much adou about nothing. For a matter of fact I feel there was no reason to stop the game as early as we did and would have preferred that we completed the 5 turns. However, I do realize many might oppose that decision and aknowledge that it is "technically" illegal what I did. However, though this action did no harm to our nation, I do offer to resign if this action is so horrible(I all fairness the stupidity of assuming we all knew the mpp weren't authorized is my great crime). If the people want me to resign I will, if not we will have a chat on the 18th.
Aggie |
I personally think that you shouldn't Resign, but you should have some form of punishment for this.
If this does not become a case for the court, I suggest the following as punishment for this deed (I will need a member of the Senate to post a bill and ratify it):
1) that you will not be allowed to be a member of the Term 7 Government in any capacity (i.e. vice/deputy/RA), except as a Regular Senator.
2) that you be allowed to be a Deputy/Vice/RA for Term 8, but cannot run for Elected office in that term.
3) That you will have your full priveliges as a member of the Demo Game be restored to you after these next 2 terms.
I think that this is a fair and equitable punishment for what you have done. Especially with the fact that you have spoken up and made your statement about what you have done.
What say you, Senators?
E_T
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by E_T
I personally think that you shouldn't Resign, but you should have some form of punishment for this.
If this does not become a case for the court, I suggest the following as punishment for this deed (I will need a member of the Senate to post a bill and ratify it):
1) that you will not be allowed to be a member of the Term 7 Government in any capacity (i.e. vice/deputy/RA), except as a Regular Senator.
2) that you be allowed to be a Deputy/Vice/RA for Term 8, but cannot run for Elected office in that term.
3) That you will have your full priveliges as a member of the Demo Game be restored to you after these next 2 terms.
I think that this is a fair and equitable punishment for what you have done. Especially with the fact that you have spoken up and made your statement about what you have done.
What say you, Senators?
E_T |
hi ,
 , we should look in the COL , punishment should be harsh and swift , but only if convicted in a court of law 
actually what kind of punishment is the purpetrator proposing himself , ........
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:24
|
|
* MrWhereItsAt thinks back to the time, as President, he knowingly went against then FAM Togas' wishes for the timing of a peace with France in favour of an idea of Aggie's.
There was a problem then as I superceded the FAM's powers. Togas was understandably annoyed, and contacted the Judiciary to help sort things out privately. This was done and we got on with the game. IMO, this is what needs to happen again.
That damn document is here to serve us, not the other way around. I really need to put that in my sig, I say it often enough.  But, I certainly take the point that some members of our game take some offence to the decisions made. This must be cleared up.
As opposed to in my case where there was less unanimous agreement from those in attendance about the peace with France, here it seems that the MPPs were seen to be a correct decision by the chatters. Think of the only alternative: that the game was stopped, and at least one upstanding citizen here has mentioned how annoying that would have been for him, and doubtless for others who put work in to our grand civilisation. For myself, I would have wanted the game stopped upon Rome's declaration, and I believe the decision to continue was very courageous. BUT it seems no ill has come of it beyond that which we make for ourselves.
So I suggest that we don't get too concerned about this. Yes it was a mistake, and we need to clear up any misunderstandings or failures to communicate where they exist. I hope a simple public or private apology will do, as it did in the case with my mistake some months ago. Let's not penalise anyone here - it looks to be a further disincentive to participate. If you are going to be President you sometimes have to make snap decisions. In this case the decision was discussed and from what I have gathered in this thread so far, agreed to by not an inconsiderable number of chatters. We are reaching a point where all our citizens recognise the best course of action in response to the AI, and the MPPs were judged to have been correct. I commend the strength involved in such a decision, and I hope that any and all apologies can be made so we can get on with things.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-12-2002 13:13
Attachment: 
|