Request for a formal exmplanation

[Belschaft]

Ok, I think we all know what the issue here is. I was, for a period of time - in fact the entirety of the period between me being elected as replacement MoFA till after the new elections were started - denied access to BCD. Whilst this is not strictly illegal - as BCD has no legal status - it represents a serious breach of procedure. Not only this, I was also lied to by both Todd and Hileville about the reason for me not having been given the BCD password - Todd specifically told me that it was an 'oversight' that would be corrected immediately, and lied by telling me he was going to send me the password. Both the act of denying a cabinet minister access to cabinet, and lying to him about this fact, deeply disturb me.Needless to say I now have access. I acquired it after directly confronting Hileville, and making it very clear that if I did not receive an explanation within a relatively short period of time I would go before the assembly with the issue. I waited for that explanation - I requested it last Wednesday evening - and having not received it I again had to confront him today. He informed me that 'Sheepa suspended your access as he was concerned about security. Your conversation with Carta spread through the cabinet and he wanted to investigate a little more. I believe his investigation is over now.' - an explanation I found deeply unsatisfactory, as I made very clear. I then demanded that he provide me with the password immediately; this time he did.I would like a formal explanation from the MoS just what exactly it thought it was doing actively denying an elected official access. By like I mean demand.

[Belschaft]

I have just logged onto my nation, and found the following TG, sent this morning;

As you are already aware, you do not have access to the BCD sub-forum within TSP's forum. This is due to a request to admin, made by myself, until I could carry out an investigation into a potential security issue related to yourself. I want to make it clear though that you aren't being accused of wrongdoing, but the chat log in question warrants an explanation.

This was posted in BCD, Feb 1 2012:

04:16 Bel Y'know what, fuck it. Carta, how do you fancy couping TSP?
04:17 Cartakii @Bel: lolwut
04:17 Cartakii glorious azn communist autocracy with a chairman obviously
04:17 Bel Sure, why not
04:17 Cartakii o_o
04:18 Cartakii cannot sure if serious. D:
04:18 Bel shrugs
04:18 Bel Damn place is going to the dogs anyway
04:19 Cartakii I can't find myself supporting a coup in all honesty...after what I've seen...
04:19 Cartakii But still, it's better to die a painful death than to live on in disgrace, is it not?
04:19 Bel I dunno
04:20 Bel Is it?
04:20 Cartakii I believe so.
04:20 Cartakii Time will take its course, and this government will eventually fall...all things do...
04:20 Cartakii But until then...
04:21 Cartakii I'm not one to encourage such things.
04:21 Cartakii We've all worked very hard to make things work over there.
04:21 Cartakii Also, what has prompted this idea Bel?
04:21 Cartakii Seems odd...seeing as we've gone to pretty great measures to /stop coups/.
04:23 Bel Boredom.
04:23 Cartakii mhm
04:23 Bel Desire to get into the feeder tyrants club
04:23 Cartakii lol
04:23 Bel Incredulity
04:23 Cartakii would be a tyranny tyrant.
04:23 Bel Take your pick
04:23 Cartakii But I can't do it OOCly D:
04:24 Cartakii @Bel: It'd be really hard too...Hile is /very active/.
04:24 Cartakii you rly couldn't just take it
04:24 Cartakii tbh
04:24 Bel Meh. Remember how many coup attempts I thwarted when I was MoS/Del?
04:25 Cartakii Aye.
04:25 Cartakii With great detail.
04:25 Bel I reckon I could do it, even if I gave the other side a head side. By, for example, declaring my intention to do so in an IRC channel with two government ministers in
04:26 Cartakii ._.
04:26 Cartakii It'd still be really challenging...Hile could just eject you.
04:26 Cartakii unless you have sleepers with lol influence
04:26 Bel Me? Have sleepers? Never
04:27 Cartakii i see
04:27 Cartakii how would you even pull a coup off then in TSP?
04:30 Bel Hmm... haven't given it much thought
04:31 Cartakii yah
04:31 Cartakii it isn't going to be easy tbh
04:31 Cartakii wouldn't be
04:31 Cartakii Bel why not just try to improve the region.
04:32 Cartakii D:

As Minister of Security, I had little choice but to take action. Your suspension from BCD is temporary until a determination can be made. This decision will not be made by myself.

I offer you the opportunity to explain in your own words the conversation you had with Carta. If you so choose. You aren't obligated to offer an explanation, however if you do not, that will be noted in my investigation.

Thank you.

Sheepa, Minister of Security.

Now, let us begin to take it apart, piece by piece.

As you are already aware, you do not have access to the BCD sub-forum within TSP's forum.

Yes, as I became aware of when it became apparent that I was being lied to; the repeated failure of individuals to provide the password when asked for it hinted at something was up. I eventually got the truth out of Hileville, as stated above. Clearly you did not feel it necessary to inform me as such.

This is due to a request to admin, made by myself, until I could carry out an investigation into a potential security issue related to yourself. I want to make it clear though that you aren't being accused of wrongdoing, but the chat log in question warrants an explanation.

Ah. So I am not being accused of wrong doing, but I am being judged as guilty until proven otherwise? That is the reason for extra-judicial - though, as I note above, not technically illegal - action being taken against me?

This was posted in BCD, Feb 1 2012:

It warrants an explanation, but it required thirty two days for you to seek it? Including a period of over a week and a half where I was extra-judicially denied cabinet access?


Now, we move on to the quoted conversation. I first note that this is not comprehensive, and omits a great deal. Amongst what it omits is several other un-serious suggestions and conversations I take part in during that night (across several channels), as well as the revelation that I was somewhat inebriated at that time. I would draw your attention to the time of day - the early morning. Usually when I am on IRC at that time, unless I am staying up for a liberation, it means I have been drinking. There is also the very relevant fact that shortly after that exchange - the next day, I believe - Carta and myself then talked again. During that conversation he specifically asked me if I had been serious. I stated that no, I had not been, that I had been joking whilst drunk, a fact I considered rather apparent. I cannot quote precisely, as I do not have the logs saved. Other people - Unibot if I remember correctly - also asked me the same, and got the same response. Now to digest certain sections of the exchange;

04:21 Cartakii Also, what has prompted this idea Bel?
04:21 Cartakii Seems odd...seeing as we've gone to pretty great measures to /stop coups/.
04:23 Bel Boredom.
04:23 Cartakii mhm
04:23 Bel Desire to get into the feeder tyrants club
04:23 Cartakii lol
04:23 Bel Incredulity
04:23 Cartakii would be a tyranny tyrant.
04:23 Bel Take your pick

Does this sound like a serious exchange? My supposed reasons; boredom... desire to get into the feeder tyrants club... incredulity. I also point you to Carta's 'Seems odd' comment. He notes that we have both spent a lot of our time stopping coups in TSP. Usually it is sensible to consider a subjects history in such matters, and I point to my own history as a committed defender, as well as an individual who spent six months of his time fighting to protect this region first as MoS and then as Delegate. Those things are fairly good indications that the comments are not serious.

04:25 Bel I reckon I could do it, even if I gave the other side a head side. By, for example, declaring my intention to do so in an IRC channel with two government ministers in

This really says it all, I think. Anyone with even a passing understanding of sarcasm would place this comment in its context.

4:26 Cartakii It'd still be really challenging...Hile could just eject you.
04:26 Cartakii unless you have sleepers with lol influence
04:26 Bel Me? Have sleepers? Never

It is a well known fact that should you remove WA from a nation it begins to lose influence rapidly. As for the entirety of this period my WA's locations has been well known, if ever changing - it is currently on one of my switchers <a class='bbc_url' href='http://www.nationstates.net/nation=red_london'>Red London</a> if you are interested - it is physically impossible for me to have sleepers with high influence. I am surprised you, the MoS, are not aware of this fairly basic fact.

As Minister of Security, I had little choice but to take action. Your suspension from BCD is temporary until a determination can be made. This decision will not be made by myself.

That is apparent from the fact that I am now posting here.

I offer you the opportunity to explain in your own words the conversation you had with Carta. If you so choose.

Indeed? I offer you the opportunity to explain why it took thirty two days for you to send me this TG. I believe I have now done both, and await your own response.


Oh, and in case it is not apparent, I am rather angry. And being sarcastic. Considering this moronic incident, I now recognize it is necessary to make it clear when I am being so.

That is all.

[Sheepa]

Most of that time was spent trying to decide what to do about the situation, not to keep you in the dark. Secondly, nobody said you were guilty of anything. You can infer that if you wish, but the suspension was always temporary until this was cleared up. You made claims that you wanted to coup the region. You may very well be joking, but I wasn't the only one who was unsure of that. If you can't see how your conversation could be taken the wrong way, then I suggest you put this in context.

You stepped down as delegate, and was inactive for some time.


Then you return, and your first port of call appears to be this: <a class='bbc_url' href='http://z1.invisionfree.com/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=10436'>http://z1.invisionfree.com/theSPacific/ind...showtopic=10436</a>

The same time the cabinet became aware of the chatlog. It appeared questionable, as also at the same time, you appeared in IRC asking for information about Hileville's election to the position of delegate.

I'm sorry if you're angry, and I'm not entirely surprised that you are, but from my point of view, and a few others as well, the chatlog was a concern. I took a decision that I knew perfectly well was on shaky ground, but I will stand by my request to temporarily suspend your BCD access. I would have been negligent in my duty by simply doing nothing.

I consulted with other members of cabinet before making my request, and I didn't hear anyone raise any objections.

If you can't see that your conversation and behaviour on return could be interpreted as suspect, then I politely ask that you see this from the point of view of a region that has not only been couped in the last year, but faced several more attempts since, as well as security leaks, Frak, malicious attempts at discrediting the government, and declarations of "war".

It is a well known fact that should you remove WA from a nation it begins to lose influence rapidly. As for the entirety of this period my WA's locations has been well known, if ever changing - it is currently on one of my switchers Red London if you are interested - it is physically impossible for me to have sleepers with high influence. I am surprised you, the MoS, are not aware of this fairly basic fact.

Don't presume to know the minds of other people. In the exact same sense that we couldn't presume to know your mind. I may get where you're coming from, if I were the only one who was concerned. But then, if I was, I doubt I would have had my request granted to begin with.

My primary concern was the safety of TSP. I'm sorry that in that process I offended and angered you, but if I neglected to act on the chance that I would annoy someone, then I would be failing in my duty.

[Belschaft]

Most of that time was spent trying to decide what to do about the situation, not to keep you in the dark. Secondly, nobody said you were guilty of anything. You can infer that if you wish, but the suspension was always temporary until this was cleared up.

No matter how temporary it may have been intended to be, it was and remains an extra-judicial action that constituted the denial of an elected official access to cabinet for what constituted the entirety of my - admittedly short - term of office. Whilst you may claim that no one said I was guilty, I was treated as such. There was no judicial hearing. No charges were placed before the MoJ. The Delegate, when questioned, was unable to inform me of what I was actually accused; because he did not know. The reality is that you exercised a sentence upon an individual who was not even aware that he was accused, never mind of what he was accused of. This is quite probably illegal, though I am not one hundred percent certain - our laws do contain a number of loopholes. However, at the very least, your actions went against the spirit of the law, and certainly the intent. Not only was the accused not tried before having his liberties and rights infringed upon, but he was not even informed that he was accused. Thus, I state that your actions were extra judicial. I do not state that they were illegal - I am not certain of that, and I leave that up to the MoJ.

You made claims that you wanted to coup the region. You may very well be joking, but I wasn't the only one who was unsure of that. If you can't see how your conversation could be taken the wrong way, then I suggest you put this in context.

You stepped down as delegate, and was inactive for some time.


Then you return, and your first port of call appears to be this: <a class='bbc_url' href='http://z1.invisionfree.com/theSPacific/ind...showtopic=10436'>http://z1.invisionfree.com/theSPacific/ind...showtopic=10436</a>

Yes. I distinctly remember; a couple of days before those incidents I remarked to Unibot that I had serious concerns about the rule of law in TSP, and how it appeared to have been ignored. This was at the time when I was questioning the legality of the lack of a MoFA election, and Antariels appointment to a government position - albeit not an executive one - and my concerns were being ignored, and ridiculed. At the time I remarked that I was considering 'extreme action', though I did not detail it. The extreme action you can clearly see there; a request for a judicial review, which, you may note, agreed with my assessment on the germane points (as an aside, and having reviewed BCD, I now believe that Unibot's rulings on points four and five to have been incorrect). The day after Unibot asked me if I was seriously planning to coup TSP - as related above - and I gave the negative action. At the time I associated it with my 'extreme action' comment, though in retrospect I believe it should be traced back to this. The context of it is thus me raising concerns about the rule of law being ignored, and being proved correct in such.

The same time the cabinet became aware of the chatlog. It appeared questionable, as also at the same time, you appeared in IRC asking for information about Hileville's election to the position of delegate.

Actually, I had no interest in the delegate election, but rather the cabinet elections. I was double checking what I believed to have been the case in the above, and checking that Hax had been appointed legally, as I thought he had. You should note that shortly after I asked Todd for the old election threads, I posted my request for judicial review.

I'm sorry if you're angry, and I'm not entirely surprised that you are, but from my point of view, and a few others as well, the chatlog was a concern. I took a decision that I knew perfectly well was on shaky ground, but I will stand by my request to temporarily suspend your BCD access. I would have been negligent in my duty by simply doing nothing.

Agreed. What you should have done is quickly establish the germane facts in the matter, most probably by talking to me, where upon I would have clarified the situation, revealed the location of my WA. Alternatively, it would be an incredibly easy to acquire such information without informing me, by simply asking Unibot to enquire as to the location of my WA for defending purposes, and so forth. It is also worth noting that at this very point in time I was discussing this same issue with Unibot, to whom I made it very cleat that my singular concern was the rule of law.

I consulted with other members of cabinet before making my request, and I didn't hear anyone raise any objections.

Really? What precisely does this mean? I can see no trace of a cabinet vote on the matter, which means you must have enquired via other means.

If you can't see that your conversation and behaviour on return could be interpreted as suspect, then I politely ask that you see this from the point of view of a region that has not only been couped in the last year, but faced several more attempts since, as well as security leaks, Frak, malicious attempts at discrediting the government, and declarations of "war".

And I suggest you consider the context of the accused having been one of the primary participants in preventing such actions - serving concurrently as MoS and Delegate during those incidents. As I mentioned earlier, the character of the accused is a matter of consideration. I, for example, would not readily believe claims that Unibot is plotting to raid TRR, due to his known record and character, and would judge any evidence I see to suggest otherwise in that context. Similarly, I would not believe rumours that you were plotting war on the south.

Don't presume to know the minds of other people. In the exact same sense that we couldn't presume to know your mind. I may get where you're coming from, if I were the only one who was concerned. But then, if I was, I doubt I would have had my request granted to begin with.

I do however presume that the MoS is competent, and knows the basics of their job. That influence quickly dwindles to nothing without WA is a very basic fact, and I do not see how you could serve as Delegate of a region or MoS without being aware of it.

My primary concern was the safety of TSP. I'm sorry that in that process I offended and angered you, but if I neglected to act on the chance that I would annoy someone, then I would be failing in my duty.

You would also be failing in your duty if your exercise of it proved to be negligent. At no point during your thirty two day investigation did you, as far as I can tell, to any actual investigation. If I am wrong in this fact, then please enlighten me. However, regardless of how much investigation you did or did not do, thirty two days is excessively long, especially considering the seriousness of the circumstances. As I have noted above, in the process of your investigation you may very well have broken the law - something which, ironically enough, the individual upon whom you imposed an extra-judicial sentence, has not. Because, in case you have not noticed, there has been no Belschaft coup.

That fact alone, do you not think, suggests that you should reconsider your actions?

[Sheepa]

32 day investigation? No. Most of that time was spent consulting others in the Cabinet, the investigation was less than half that. You can choose to rest this squarely on my shoulders if you wish, but without approval from admin, the delegate, and any objections from the MoJ (who I got the go ahead from), then the investigation would not have gone ahead.Your WA defence is meaningless. You don't have to be in the WA to pose a security risk. I didn't think for a second that you were capable of a coup, but this isn't about capability, it's about sensitive information in BCD that could be used to harm TSP. Again, a determination was never even made. A temporary restriction is hardly a sentence. Not once have I said you were guilty of anything. Restrictions aren't convictions. Period. I stand by my request. I did what I thought was in the best interests of TSP. If you want to see me face trial for that, then that is your right to request it.To be frank, I don't expect to be able to reason with you on this. I did my job, and I would do it again if I had to. I won't apologise for protecting TSP. If the majority of the cabinet think I was wrong to make the request, then I will gladly resign.

[Hileville]

I have comments to make but don't have the time to do it right now.

[Todd McCloud]

Well since I've been mentioned, I might as well respond. I wasn't present during the conversation on IRC, so I don't know what the tone of the room was before and after it took place. But based on the sample size, it sounded serious to me, only to be later reneged. Least that's how it sounded to me, but then again, why discuss it with a prominent member in the cabinet in one conversation without followed by some kind of joke or lightheartedness? That's what I don't understand. You weren't really in position to coup the region - really the best route would've been to drop all arguments you've had with people since your return, do some work in the region, get some people to actually work together, and you've got a good shot of being re-elected as a delegate. I suppose that's what's most confusing to me. Unless you're just mad to be mad, which is alright, but then don't be surprised if people don't really interpret things like the above as you want them to.Power in this game at least isn't about being a delegate or collecting titles or whatever. It's being involved in the flow of information. It really is. To become a plumber in the pipes of conversation if you will. That's how things change. That's how people are moved forward or set backward.I feel I need to ask this, being a concerned individual: you ok? You were gone from the game for personal reasons and left in an honorable fashion given the circumstances. Better one realizes they don't have time for the game rather than drag it out and drag others through their RL's. You came back a few months ago, and it's like a different person. I don't know, you just seemed to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, and it concerned me. Still does. And it's been getting difficult to talk to you about stuff in the region. Just so... sour, I guess. I can't speak for anyone else here, but it's been a worry of mine. So when I put that together with the above, yeah, you can say I was concerned. Concerned enough that when Sheepa asked me to change the BCD password so he may continue his investigation, I was okay with it. Though I hated thinking that way. So I guess what I want to know is why the change? If it's personal, so be it, I don't need to know. But be aware that as an individual apart from the game I'm a little concerned.And don't come down on Sheepa. He was merely doing his job and knew he wouldn't come up smelling like roses because of it. That's what we all elected him to do - I'd like to think anyone else would've expressed concern over the whole situation, to do something that someone felt was right rather than what would've made them more popular. But this is the principle: the conversation was posted, he as the MOS was concerned, he spoke to the cabinet and myself about the matter, and we in turn reacted. I take full responsibility for what I did - hiding it wasn't the correct choice. I was hoping to buy some more time, it didn't work. Tough cheese for me, but eh, win a few lose a few. You can still be mad at me, I can take it, but I advise you to lay off of your fellow cabinet members here - they at least did their jobs with dignity.

[Haxstree]

I'll simply say Sheepa did his job and did it well.

[Eluvatar]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >4:26 Cartakii It'd still be really challenging...Hile could just eject you.
04:26 Cartakii unless you have sleepers with lol influence
04:26 Bel Me? Have sleepers? Never

It is a well known fact that should you remove WA from a nation it begins to lose influence rapidly. As for the entirety of this period my WA's locations has been well known, if ever changing - it is currently on one of my switchers <a class='bbc_url' href='http://www.nationstates.net/nation=red_london'>Red London</a> if you are interested - it is physically impossible for me to have sleepers with high influence. I am surprised you, the MoS, are not aware of this fairly basic fact.
</blockquote> For the record, this theory is false. I have empirically observed that active non-WA nations do not lose influence at all.

I'm not saying Belshaft was misleading us, I'm just saying he doesn't understand that aspect of Influence :whistle:

I wouldn't want the Cabinet to get the wrong idea of how Influence works.