Join the new world

o7

you guys are completely right , i hope you good luck

The reasons mentioned are factually false. All data that is possible is recorded (but not to the liking of Odan, because it's in another column and in another colour), I don't see how there is 'undermining of Congressional procedures' (???) and MoF has adjusted actions based on a very lengthy chat in the national feed.

Sad to remove arguably the single most active person in eNetherlands. But I'm very well aware of that being done by the ever-same snakes for over a decade now.

I did not include the requester name to avoid personal attacks on him. It is not odan (nor any I&W member), so please cool it with the unfounded attack. they are not helping.

I did not personally attack anyone nor did I insinuate it was Odan who requested this debate, I was making a remark on the debate that was taking place the last few days and is leading to this MoNC. Not to mention it is quite questionable to hide the identity of the proposer when the 'transparency' and 'accountability' questions are being risen about Janty F.

requester can always make himself public if he chooses to be.

Did not asked to hide my identity. Its no secret.

I will add it. The proposal wasn't 'signed' so I was not sure;

I dont mind if you state I requested the motion. Its no secret. The reasons are combined from different Congress Members, but they all point to the same thing. I want government members to have respect for opinions in Congress. So not waving input away, with a sad joke to put the drawing on your fridge. Just one example of the disrespect. Its ok to disagree, but please have some respect.
If we had a Motie van Afkeuring, I would have used that one. But at the moment we only have this procedure in place.

Congress can always make up motions to force something, without immediately removing a person that has no ill intent and is for better or worse determinant to our nation. Because now your rightful concerns (because I know Janty F can have a very abrasive style of politics) are being hijacked over inane issues like the colouring of the Sheet or placement of columns.

He can always appologize in public and promise to change. I might change my vote if he does.

Well, having no ill intent... he definitely not appreciates input of others and takes any chance he has to put someone else down (examples are abundant). This is not behaviour worthy of congress or government.
If you read his wiki, on why he had to leave cuba, I imagine a very similar situation was there.
Activity should not excuse acting like an insecure prick.

I propose Weekstrom as MoF, he always did a good job so by all means ask the man for this position!

He has been helping this month with his feedback on monetary affairs, do not worry 😉

Is a motion of no confidence not something only to be used when all else fails? As a normal citizen I of course can't see all the communication that goes on in private messages between you all. I assume that the requester of this motion has tried everything he possibly could before choosing this path? Maybe the requester can provide screenshots of the times he asked information from the MoF and didn't get to really proof his case to 'the people outside PM channels'. If the requester takes his chosen path any serious he will do anything to swing our opinion. If not, this all is a waste of government resources and a cause of lesser confidence from citizens like me. I like a good 'Motion of no confidence', bring it on I say.. but one has to bring more to the table to persuade the masses.

I do not use PMs, so all informations should be public. Just as the Finance Sheet is public, and MoF articles are public.

I have made summary of my own here, providing actual screenshots and explanation to reasons mentioned in this MoNC - after reading the article, you might understand, why the reuqester did not go into many details 😉 :

https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/on-the-monc--2694868

Response on the MoNC

https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/on-the-monc--2694868

Too long for one comment, as it takes space to debunk all the manipulations provided by requester of the debate.

While I agree on some matters that are put in the MonC, I disagree with most.
TL😃R: To early for a MonC. He should however start to act more open in debates and not attack people reacting on him with remarks or questions.

Let’s start with the ba😛
Janty does indeed tend to communicate in a manner that will not work with 90% of the community and does not react well to comments or questions that seem to suggest he does something wrong. He tends to take them personal immediately and will defend in a harsh way. That makes debating difficult. Nothing new there. Always been that way also when he was MoD.
He seems unwilling to respond to congress by not being willing to be part of the CM PM. He does however discuss matters out in the open in-game. Not the easiest for congress and I’m not in favour.

The good however:
If you comment or ask questions and actually suggest improvements you’ll find it becomes less difficult. He however needs to be convinced you know what you’re talking about and actually understand matters. If he is and you have solid arguments he will adapt. I have had a lot of discussions with him about the matter. Mainly via direct PM and telegram while you all could have seen the in-game remarks. He is adapting matters as a result of cooperation with others. And yes that included minor issues like the use of colours. I don’t think anyone can disagree using colours can be an advantage but not like in his initial version.

So key is to make sure you know what you’re talking about before commenting and not just state you don’t like something.

Now looking at the 4 problems mentione😛
- Removal of transparency? It seemed that way due to hiding columns. However he already did undo that so all is visible again for all that want to check matters. Apart from that he is trying very hard to improve transparency for people not being into large sheets. So untrue.
- Lack of recording? He’s recording the same as other MoF’s. So untrue.
- Actively undermining congress? By not being part of congress PM one could say so but there are other means. So more difficult than it should but hardly true.
- Not open for feedback? If you only say what is bad or you don’t like: True. If you actually debate with him: It’s sometimes hard but untrue.

To conclude with: a MonC is, at this point, unnecessary. It would become so if he actually did remove historical data or quit recording matters. Personally I had found a MonC more in place for all the MoF’s that were not transparent due to the lack of using formula’s where possible but instead just entered numbers…

the fact he saw no problem in hiding data, and only reluctantly made them visible again says enough. adding some graphs or simpler sheets for the publication while a commendable idea does not make up for that.

the previous mof not mofs. did indeed also stop recording properly, if that was noticed earlier the previous mof should have been criticized on that also.

he already refused to even enter the congress pm, forcing congress to open multiple ways to communicate with government, instead of making himself available with the rest of government in that pm and thus ensuring all small communication that does not need debates are in one place.

he might take some feedback, but ridicules other feedback, or even responds on feedback with insults and attacks.

Yes, the fact I took feedback and did good things says enough indeed - I agree on that one.

There are data from your tenures as MoF, which are also not recorded properly. Some expenses are not explained, etc. Seems a lot of previous MoFs treated the data in bad way, and I am just a scapegoat, which will get punished for all of them. And that's only because I was not afraid to uncover these mistakes, and fixed them. If I did not point them out, I doubt people would notice.

I am not Congress Member, and I believe debates of Congress are done via articles now. Even questions, as seen last month. As you can see, I do not refuse to enter those, and I even add another layer of Congress communication via feed, where public can see both questions and answers. That helps, as questions do not get repeated, once they are answered. Transparency at its best. If you want me to be part of some internal PM - either add that to the Law, or do that as a Motion. By that, it will be legal obligation, which I will happily follow.

And before you start criticizing behavior of others - think of your own, odan. Starting your "feedback" with "I am tired of all this shit." and then proceeding with "If I were your employer, you would be thrown out." and "Janty F is a child." is not the best way, if you want it to be taken seriously. Are your comments not full of attacks or insults? Do not think so, and I think majority would agree with me on that, be it this topic, or any other (any MoNC started by you would be a good example). If you decide to bring the personal feelings to the debate, do not be surprised, if the person you debate with follows the same pattern of behavior. And some feedback is just not helpful, when it contradicts the actual situation.

I have no problem with constructive criticism. I will galdy take feedback, which will make things bwetter. But I have problem with criticism done solely for the purpose of criticizing and feedback, which is aimed at turning the things for the worse. And I have seen a lot of that appearing during the debate.

not being able to admit or see what you did was wrong. says enough.

give me examples.

if a question is asked in a pm a person should at the very least respond in that pm with a i've started answering questions over there. given the fact that i didn't respond until quite a while after that "debate" was started says that it is not visible enough. some people probably never even saw it until this monc was started.

you have a way of twisting words:
the "i'm tired" was due to you opening that feed message instead of answering questions in the place where it was asked. i mean you didn't even deign to inform us that you responded somewhere else.
the "employment" is just simple fact. you never ever mess with something like that that is live, test environments exist for a reason.
the "child" i never said you were a child. i posted a simple drawing that should even be possible for children to read, because you somehow kept not understanding a very simple thing. given that you waved it away just like many other things, not understanding or not willing to understand.

people can read the feed for themselves and see that there is only 1 person attacking others, and that is not me.

Well sorry odan but perhaps like Janty you have a very peculiar method of asking 'questions' that involve a lot of seemingly insinuations and are almost impossible to answer in a neutral manner. Added to that you will complain about how people respond to that afterwards, as if a trap was set. Which I find disappointing, not because I dislike you but because you make valid points a lot of times (not always ofc 😛)

His communication style needs some improvement indeed. However there are more people having that issue. No reason for a MonC if the man does do his work which seems the case. From what I've seen (VN party PM chat) you can reason with him and he adapts. But you need solid arguments. And be careful choosing your words as he's swiftly offended.

Although i believe the new finance sheet should have been checked before usage i think janty has show initiative in inproving the sheet and is activity working to fix the mistakes currently in the sheet which includes listebing to feedbsck from citizens who actively inspected the sheet and identified its flaws. In other words he is contributing to the MoF by improving our old sheet. Imo this shouldn't be punished by a MoNC. He has been very active updating and looking for fixes for the sheet in yhe past few days. If you wish to punish him for it I expect the next MoF to fix all of this himself or expect a MoNC himself.q

I hope this debate will warn him on his attitude and communication style. Thats for me the most important part.
If he improves that instead of launching walls of text, I would be very happy.

realistic option: we will have to supply you with a constant supply of chocolate to try and keep you somewhat happy.

As I stated, this move must be mutual. If the other side is willing to abandon their harmful methods of debate, my responses will certainly look differently. If you stop with your constant jabs, your feedback will most certainly turn much more positive to work with.

Are you willing to move on and accept mutual apology? That is, what I propose, as that is the best solution for your problem 🙂 .

Our problem would have sounded better 😉

Not sure what you want me to apologize for. If you mean commenting where you missed the Lawbook, I cant.
And like Weekstrom mentioned its hard to fix something mutual if you communicate like that.

I just think all 'personalities' or typetjes need to chill down a bit, because what I mainly see is people who all care greatly for the same cause but can't stand each other (internet)-personally 😛

@ElGorro - if the feeling to calm down is not mutual, it will never work. Both sides need to stop, think a bit, and come to an agreement. Is that too much to ask :/ ?

I can live with that.

Do we need to build a northern wall? 😛

For the watch

Depends, we will learn after few episodes 😃

I'll take the black