Cabinet Statement on Osiris

[Belschaft]

Statement from the Cabinet of the South Pacific

in regards to the events occurring in Osiris

First, the Cabinet believes in the sovereign right to self-determination of all Game-Created Regions as a fundamental principle and has no interest in dictating which form of government Osiris should take. This is a process that all regions must undertake in the absence of foreign interference.
 
Second, we respect the determination of Osiris regional leadership that the extant system of governance possessed systemic flaws in need of address. Osiris has experienced a prolonged period of regional instability that has challenged and at times strained inter-regional and organizational relationships. These problems must be addressed so that peace and stability can return to the community.
 
Third, we are concerned with the dissolution of the Osiris constitution and the concentration of power, even if this new regime is temporary and transitional and regardless of the professed benign intentions. We are troubled that there was no formal vote or plebiscite held nor public discussion before the fact, which caused significant disruption in the community as the dramatic governmental changes were occurring. We believe that liberal democratic governance and institutions in the Game-Created Regions remain the most sustainable and desirable form of regional organisation, within the context of both regional self-determination and an inter-regional diplomatic system. We hope for the speedy drafting and establishment of a new body of regional law in Osiris, as well as new elections to ensure that the voices of the native community are constantly taken into account.
 
Fourth, we currently oppose any military action that threatens the independence or sovereignty of our ally Osiris. The prospect of outside intervention as discussed among some in the military community is a complex issue that would affect our long-term security interests and infringe upon the rights of the native Osiran community; we would not welcome and would be honor bound to oppose any rash action conducted without the advice and consent of the Game-Created Regions in general and the Osiran community in particular. As a general rule, diplomatic engagement should be the primary and sole vehicle for addressing purely internal government transitions within Game-Created Regions. Military action is a serious commitment that bears significant consequences for all Game-Created Regions; it should be used only as a last resort and not as a means to achieve politically expedient goals.
 
Thank You,
The Cabinet of the South Pacific

[Southern Bellz]

Can someone explain what is happening before we make a statement.

 

In Unibot's article, he said the new Osiris government is already supporting itself with troops from Spritius?  Is the current regime using force to hold on to the region?  What were the reform efforts before resulting to overthrowing the democratic government?

[Sandaoguo]

In Unibot's article, he said the new Osiris government is already supporting itself with troops from Spritius? Is the current regime using force to hold on to the region?

There's no clear motive to the troop movements in Osiris. Depending on where you lean, it could be defense against an intervention or it could be propping up a coup. However, nearly the entire government of Osiris supported Asta's coup.

What were the reform efforts before resulting to overthrowing the democratic government?

There was a constitutional convention for about a month. It supposedly wasn't going anywhere, from what I was told by Lord Ravenclaw.

[Belschaft]

Essentially Osiris' government has dissolved itself and handed their various powers to Astarial to redistribute as she and the region see best. This was done with the prior awareness and consent of nearly everyone actively involved in the off site forum and has yet to receive any formal challenge from either the judiciary or legislature. Previously they had been trying to fix their existing problems via the Constitutional Convention, but having grown sick of that process and it's failure to get anywhere they are essentially starting again from scratch, and in the meantime are trying out various ideas as they go.

 

When Osiris was first founded Wordy of TITO assumed complete control and then oversaw a process of elections and basic government construction. Astarial is fulfilling the same role. It is unquestionably illegal by Osiris' own laws, but at the same time has the overwhelming consent of the region. In pol-sci terms, they have abandoned their existing social contract and are constructing a new one to better serve their needs.

[Escade]

I still find all of the "behind the scenes" conspiracy in Osiris a little troubling and I'm not sure what the purpose is of this power grab\empress\seems like a joke but isn't situation.  If they weren't getting anywhere with their charter perhaps they could have amended the charter or opened up a discussion of Osiris' future on the RMB\via TG with long term and active nations. 


I do agree with the official statement since politically that would be the best stance for TSP and I also don't think it's our job to force democracy on other regions although we might promote\encourage it. 


Dissolving a constitution\government and couping the region for the sake of some ill-defined betterment sounds shady to me and some sort of desperate measure to either keep power or defend it from perceived threats.  It seems a bit like Milograd-lite from my perspective.

[Kris Kringle]

Dissolving a constitution\government and couping the region for the sake of some ill-defined betterment sounds shady to me and some sort of desperate measure to either keep power or defend it from perceived threats. It seems a bit like Milograd-lite from my perspective.

The thing here is that we can look at it from two perspectives. One would be to acknowledge that laws have been violated and that the government in Osiris should be held accountable.

The second perspective, as Belschaft has said, is that with the support of the people this is just the creation of a new social contract, upon the realisation that the previous one was detrimental to their interests. We often forget that in establishing a government the People do not surrender their right to the alteration or overhaul of government.

Two perspectives up for evaluation. As long as this is the true will of the Osirian people and no oppression or undue intervention happens, I don't think we can condemn their choice, at least for the time being.

[TAO]

Essentially Osiris' government has dissolved itself and handed their various powers to Astarial to redistribute as she and the region see best. This was done with the prior awareness and consent of nearly everyone actively involved in the off site forum and has yet to receive any formal challenge from either the judiciary or legislature. Previously they had been trying to fix their existing problems via the Constitutional Convention, but having grown sick of that process and it's failure to get anywhere they are essentially starting again from scratch, and in the meantime are trying out various ideas as they go.

 

When Osiris was first founded Wordy of TITO assumed complete control and then oversaw a process of elections and basic government construction. Astarial is fulfilling the same role. It is unquestionably illegal by Osiris' own laws, but at the same time has the overwhelming consent of the region. In pol-sci terms, they have abandoned their existing social contract and are constructing a new one to better serve their needs.

The emphasis in Bel's quote is mine.

 

How can this event be "unquestionably illegal by Osiris' own laws" if "Osiris' government has dissolved itself and handed their various powers to Astarial to redistribute as she and the region see best"?  Osiris no longer adheres to those laws.  I realize I am very likely the lone voice crying out in TSP but ... Forum governments only have as much control over the Game delegate as that delegate allows.  Game mechanics are democratic: one WA nation = one WA 'vote' and the nation-holder is free to endorse or not endorse the delegate as the nation sees fit.  We allow that same democratic self-determination here isn TSP.  Do we REQUIRE every WA to endorse our delegate?  Can a WA nation endorse whomever for whatever reason?  The answer to both of those questions is YES.  Therefore, TSP is called 'democratic' but we want to claim another region, following the same policies in-game is less democratic simply because the region isn't under the control of an off-site forum. 

 

In your opening post, Bel, you state, "the Cabinet believes in the sovereign right to self-determination of all Game-Created Regions as a fundamental principle and has no interest in dictating which form of government Osiris should take."  Why is Asta's current position on government in Osiris not tenable?  Is it because Osiris is not currently being ruled by a forum?  For the record, friend, I am not trying to provoke a fight with you per se, only with the idea that any/all liberal and democratic governance in the GCRs of NS can only be realized via forum control over the region.

[Kris Kringle]

I have to disagree here. The fact that a Delegate in practice has full power over a region does not mean that the People cannot establish social contracts to limit the use of those powers, and therefore that all those involved in a region should not respect that contract and the institutions that it might establish. This isn't about forum control over a region, but rather about the respect for institutions. While we should respect the sovereign right of each region to establish its own government, that doesn't mean that we should accept as a matter of principle that game mechanics must be prioritised over social contracts, even if in practice the facts are different. If the new government in Osiris follows the will of its People in instituting a new social contract then that is acceptable, as I see it, but we cannot in principle and without having ascertained all the facts accept the dissolution of all government institutions as the inherent right of a Delegate.

 

Further, I don't think that game participation is better than forum participation. Both are to some extent exclusive, in that full game participation requires a WA nation, while full forum participation requires citizenship, but still to become a citizen one just has to be a resident and fill out the application. The problem here is not the forum itself but the degree of participation it gets, and in most cases most nations are just not interested in participating in the forum. That does not mean that their opinion is not less valued or that we are residents should not listen to them in NS as well.

 

<i>One last thing I have to disagree with is the idea that if nations in a region don't agree with their Delegate then they can withdraw their endorsements. If one believes that a Delegate has full power over a region then it follows that they can eject their opponents to keep their seat. I don't see then how one can believe that somehow NS in game democracy is as easy as just unendorsing the Delegate and endorsing another nation. That, I would say, is one of the primary reasons for establishing social contracts: so that there is a guarantee against abuse that all nations can uphold.</i>

[TAO]

Thanks, Kris.  I appreciate your keeping your response to the issue.

 

I also agree that game participation isn't better than forum participation. But conversely, forum participation isn't better than game participation. I agree with you that establishing a social contract in a region is extremely valuable and using a forum to accomplish that is infinitely better and easier than trying to perform the function on a constantly rolling RMB.  A forum is a fabulous place to form and maintain regional identity and community.  But I have to repeat my earlier comment: Forum governments only have as much control over the Game delegate as that delegate allows. A social contract between region and delegate works because the delegate agrees to honor the contract and not because the social contract has any power in and of itself.  Likewise, the forum community has no real power over the game delegate.  But the forum community, when working with a good delegate, has the ability to speak to the delegate and shape the delegate's opinions and ideas. 

 

You said, "<i>I don't see then how one can believe that somehow NS in game democracy is as easy as just unendorsing the Delegate and endorsing another nation. That, I would say, is one of the primary reasons for establishing social contracts: so that there is a guarantee against abuse that all nations can uphold."  </i>There is no guarantee even if/when a social contract exists, firend.  The delegate either does or does not uphold the contract (as we have seen so many times in this game).  You rightly say that democracy in NS isn't an easy game of "<i>unendorsing the Delegate and endorsing another nation."  </i>Democracy in the face of a tyrant is damn hard work.  And for a game, that work (and the feelings it can engender) can be every bit as real as any struggle in RL.  But the first step in our version of NS democracy is where we place our WA endorsement.  True ... rebellion against a an unworthy sitting delegate has its price but it is the right and responsibility of every citizen who wants to see change to take a stand against such a one.  The correction of a broken social contract will never come from inside the forum; it will only come on the battlefield of the game and your, my, our ability to change the minds of other players to support what we believe. 

[Southern Bellz]

Yeah that's true, but we are free to disagree with the actions of a delegate and support them or oppose them.

[TAO]

We can do whatever the hell we want ... and it won't make any difference to Osiris.  But going back to my first post, I was simply pointing out the semingly contradictory statements in Bel's post.

[Sandaoguo]

Think of it like this... There was no legal mechanism for the Confederacy to secede from the U.S. However, had they succeeded, it wouldn't have mattered. Under the current U.S. Constitution, it would be unconstitutional to just scrap it and not go through the amendment process, just as it was illegal to do to the Articles of Confederation. Osiris' constitution had no mechanism for dissolving it and placing power in Asta. However, depending on if things turn out great, legalist concerns will be moot, because the new regime will have legitimacy.

 

As for the forum government/in-game delegate thing, it's a matter of philosophy. In the real world, people only have as much freedom as the elites with the armies allow them. But philosophically, we've developed the idea of freedom, democracy, and the social contract and called these things "natural laws" to delegitimize authoritarian regimes and provide backing to popular uprisings. We've worked to make forum government legitimate, even though the real power lies within the delegate. Making forum governments legitimate provides a basis for us to rise against delegates who violate the contract of forum governance.

[TAO]

And the American Rebellion was a legal mechanism against Britain? If we go the RL route, the Confederacy had more right to succeed than the Colonies did to Rebell.  At least for the Confederacy there was precedent. 

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

In essence, this same method has been invoked in Osiris.

[Kris Kringle]

And the American Rebellion was a legal mechanism against Britain? If we go the RL route, the Confederacy had more right to succeed than the Colonies did to Rebell.  At least for the Confederacy there was precedent. 

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

In essence, this same method has been invoked in Osiris.

 

I don't think the situation of the Thirteen Colonies seceding could be used as real precedent for the Confederate States. While the Thirteen Colonies suffered several abuses and lack of representation, the Confederate States did not receive such abuse. Even though I acknowledge that given the historical context the attempts to abolish slavery could be seen as abuses, I see them as nowhere near the level of abuse that the Colonies faced, specially given that southern states had representation in Congress and could raise their voice through reasonable channels.

 

This is not the same method invoked in Osiris. In their case there has not been a secession or independence. This is a case of a government dissolving itself and investing all its powers in one person. Be it that the people asked for it or the government acted and obtained popular support, this is a break in constitutional order. Depending on how it evolves, what its intentions are and if popular support is retained, this can be a traditional coup or the creation of a new social contract. I believe that so far we are facing the latter.

 

In the end I think that the point that Sandaoguo wanted to make is that if the new order in Osiris endures and retains the support of its people, then it will be legitimate and thus cannot be illegal. If it does not succeed then there can be a discussion on whether there will be real consequences (if at all even then) for those who orchestrated and enacted this break in constitutional order. It all depends on who wins, so to speak.

[Sandaoguo]

And the American Rebellion was a legal mechanism against Britain?

 

No, it wasn't, and that's my entire point. Legal and legitimate, vice-versa, are not always synonymous.

[TAO]

Well then, all is well and good.  It appears we are in agreement that "if the new order in Osiris endures and retains the support of its people, then [it] will be legitimate and thus cannot be illegal."

 

If the region does not have the support of the majority of players in the region, the disaffected majority should receive support in replacing the regional leadership.

[Sandaoguo]

Eh, we agree on the first part, but it will have always been an illegal, unconstitutional act. There are both reasons to respect Osiris' leadership's choices, and reasons to be concerned about how it was done. This isn't quite as black and white and some people want it to be. That's why our statement reflects a position of cautious optimism without tying our hands to one viewpoint.

[Punk D]

I also agree that game participation isn't better than forum participation.

 

What is the definition of "better" being used here? Game participation is a priori participation from a game standpoint and forum participation is neither a priori nor is it necessary.

 

With that in mind, it is simply illogical to place supremacy with forum governments above the mechanics of the game. If game mechanics state that the delegate's government is the same as the 'forum' government, then it has legitimacy. But if the delegate's government moves away from a 'forum' government then where does the forum government derive its legitimacy? If the answer is with the 20-30 people who actively participate on the forum, that does not outweigh the hundreds of people who support the in-game delegate. 

 

I'll take this example to its logical conclusion. In TWP, if AGP was supplanted as delegate and it was not by a guardian, I doubt we would say "The forum government is the legit government of TWP" and seek for people to rally around our forum government. Instead, we would say that whomever is delegate is legitimate. That legitimacy exists because the game is a perpetual election. As such, the members of the 'forum' government who actively participate in-game would probably seek to supplant the current delegate because we in-game would want to continue to direct the region's government. Should the people of TWP choose to support this new delegate it would be a legitimate regime. 

 

I think I may have one of the more extreme opinions on the subject, but I just do not like the logical inconsistency that I'd have to carry if I believed forum governments were supreme to the in-game perpetual election. 

 

I believe part of the misconception with TWP's position on these things is that "TWP supports usurpers". That's not true, TWP supports in-game delegates right to establish their own brand of government. This doesn't mean we like all the governments created by delegate's or that TWP wouldn't support replacing a particular delegate. But the justification for removing a delegate is not likely to be "this delegate is not legitimate (aka legal)". Game legalities trump all off-site social contracts.

 

just my two dimes added to the conversation

 

/takes off TWP hat.

[Kris Kringle]

Last time I checked the whole point of a social contract was precisely to be the supreme will of the people against abuses or actions from someone who put their actual capabilities above upholding the contract. Now, TWP's contract is precisely that leadership in game will prevail, and I by all means respect that, but that does not mean that other regions will have established the same contract.
Does the in game Delegate have full actual power over the region? Yes. Can he in practice ignore the regional charter or constitution? Yes. Can someone else become Delegate outside and election and in practice, if the people accept them, become Delegate? Yes. Does the fact that something is possible mean that we should discard our contravening laws? Absolutely not. That is precisely why we have laws: to have our citizens and leaders honour them.
On the question of forum vs in game participation, one can make the case that it is better (though I'm referring here to the case, not to the conclusion) because it features the most dedicated citizens in a region. I still believe that in game participation is equally important, because some kinds of participation are more important than just politics, but you need to give the forum its merits when they are due.

TL;TR. Just because in practice a Delegate has full power doesn't mean that be shouldn't honour our contracts, and it also doesn't mean that our contracts aren't enforceable. TWP has a different system and I respect that, but other regions might prefer a different kind of contract.

[StGeorgie]

Can someone explain what is happening before we make a statement.

 

In Unibot's article, he said the new Osiris government is already supporting itself with troops from Spritius?  Is the current regime using force to hold on to the region?  What were the reform efforts before resulting to overthrowing the democratic government?

Unibot's article was a pile of crap, to be blunt.

 

Spiritus troopers were already in Osiris as part of a joint defence initiative between the Spiritus Defence Force and Osiris to develop and nurture a new range of low to mid influence nations to be useful in the fight against any future coup. They remain in the region for that reason.

 

Asta's actions are not actually illegal by Osiris' laws. They was never a process outlined for the dissolution of the state in the Book of the Dead, this was done partially for this reason: so that future governments, if needed, could 'reset' the region, so to speak.

 

The vast majority of Osirians support this. Those who don't seem to be a mix of people worried about losing their power in the region, people whose loyalties lie elsewhere and have used our region as their pawn in the past and people who are inactive in our region yet maintain citizenship.

[Sandaoguo]

Asta's actions are not actually illegal by Osiris' laws. They was never a process outlined for the dissolution of the state in the Book of the Dead, this was done partially for this reason: so that future governments, if needed, could 'reset' the region, so to speak.

This is a bit ridiculous, to be quite honest. The absence of any means to dissolve the Book of the Dead and install someone as Empress doesn't mean it's legal to dissolve the Book of the Dead and install someone as Empress. It in fact means the exact opposite.

 

The vast majority of Osirians support this. Those who don't seem to be a mix of people worried about losing their power in the region, people whose loyalties lie elsewhere and have used our region as their pawn in the past and people who are inactive in our region yet maintain citizenship.

It was not quite believable in the first place that the "vast majority" of people in Osiris supported Asta's coup. All that was told to us was that "people" were "consulted" privately beforehand. There's no verifiable data to back this claim up, as there was no vote before or after the coup.

 

Recent events, specifically the vocal opposition of long-term powerbrokers, just leads me to believe more strongly that the claim is exaggerated. It's common practice in Osiris to besmirch detractors in Osiris as disloyal and selfish, and it seems that pattern hasn't been broken.

 

I stand by the Cabinet statement and my statements here that Asta's regime can gain legitimacy<i> </i>if it is temporary and if the goal is to quickly re-establish constitutional governance. I'm not so sure this is going to happen. Trends point to Asta, Cormac, and company trying to set up a government themselves, and coming here just seems like a PR effort to shore up support for the regime's legitimacy. Signs are troubling.

[StGeorgie]

This is a bit ridiculous, to be quite honest. The absence of any means to dissolve the Book of the Dead and install someone as Empress doesn't mean it's legal to dissolve the Book of the Dead and install someone as Empress. It in fact means the exact opposite.

Actually no it doesn't. It might do in TSP, but not in Osiris where the executive has always been limited by what is written in the law, not what is not. That is to the say, that whatever hasn't been declared illegal, is legal.

 

 

It was not quite believable in the first place that the "vast majority" of people in Osiris supported Asta's coup. All that was told to us was that "people" were "consulted" privately beforehand. There's no verifiable data to back this claim up, as there was no vote before or after the coup.

The dissolution of the government was an action that no one objected to.

 

 

Recent events, specifically the vocal opposition of long-term powerbrokers, just leads me to believe more strongly that the claim is exaggerated.

The "vocal opposition" is from someone who has couped the region in the past when he was worried about losing his power and prestige, and his opposition to the current state of affairs is from that same worry.

 

 

It's common practice in Osiris to besmirch detractors in Osiris as disloyal and selfish, and it seems that pattern hasn't been broken.

 Your bias against Osiris is known and noted. As such I'll take your accusations with just a pinch of salt.

[Sandaoguo]

Actually no it doesn't. It might do in TSP, but not in Osiris where the executive has always been limited by what is written in the law, not what is not. That is to the say, that whatever hasn't been declared illegal, is legal.

If "the executive has always been limited by what is written in the law" then the absence of any written authority to dissolve the Book of the Dead means there was a limit on the executive's authority to dissolve the Book of the Dead. You guys were claiming yourself that it was an extraordinary measure that needed to be undertaken. It was illegal. There's no question about it. Whether or not it was legitimate is a completely different question, one that is based on the outcome of all of this.

The dissolution of the government was an action that no one objected to.

There's a change of language here. We've gone from literally everybody supporting it, to nobody objecting. I've already said all I have to say about this. The only way to legitimately say Asta's regime had the consent of the region is if there was a public discussion, preferably a public vote. This didn't take place and you guys haven't offered any documentation of your wide consultations. So the prudent observer will look at these claims with a lot of skepticism.

The "vocal opposition" is from someone who has couped the region in the past when he was worried about losing his power and prestige, and his opposition to the current state of affairs is from that same worry.

Someone, I might add, that's been celebrated in Osiris for a very long time, even after his coup. And unless I'm mixing up my puppets, you were the one who welcomed him with open arms when he coup'd you. Biyah was also the most vocal proponent of the Asta regime coup as it was happening, even going so far as to come on to TSP's IRC channel and argue about it with me.

But now that he doesn't support Asta, of course he's a disloyal, power-hungry guy looking out only for his own prestige. Pretty much all of you have the same pattern when it comes to dealing with people you don't like. You attack their character and trustworthiness. You dismiss literally everything they say as being motivated by some irrational hatred of your region. You're doing it right now, in another region's forum, targeting a member of that region's Cabinet...