[Congress] MoNC against CoC (odan)
Day 4,180, 20:51
•
Published in Netherlands 
•
by
•
by Janty F
Greetings, citizens of Netherlands,
I was afraid ever since the first article of the new Chairman of Congress, odan, that we might see suppression and twisting of democracy from the new management based on their political needs, and not needs of actual Congress Members or citizens. Today (actually yesterday, but I only learned about it now), my fears were confirmed. And even though I am not a fan of these procedures myself, I believe the Motion of No Confidence against Chairman should be discussed and started. Why? Let's see below.
After previous Congress failed to started vote on my MoNC change proposal in time, I have naturally asked new CoC team to fix that mistake. And I was pleasantly surprised, how smooth it went. See below:
Based on this information I got from CoC, I expected the 24 debate to exist, and then vote to be started, as Chairman confirmed to do. Overall, my proposal has been already debated, and no new opinions or Congress Members engaged in the debate. And a vote has been started... however, not as I expecte
😛
As you can see, there are several things wrong with the vote, that appeared in the Congress yesterday. It is on the similar topic, but it contains completely different proposal. Naturally, that is no problem, if the proposal was debated in Congress, as stipulated by the Law. So let me link you to the debate article:
... oh, there is none. So, Congress is currently voting on proposal, which was not debated at all. That in itself is against the Article 6 of the Congress Law, as all proposals need to pass the 24 hour debate first. Including the one requested by blackpatje. Therefore anything resulting from this vote should (and will) be automatically declared null, as the vote itself has not been started on the legal basis.
To make things worse, I am being told several Congress members have been confused by this situation, and they voted believing they vote on my proposal. Which is natural - I would assume so as well, given the fact it is the only proposal, which was debated on the topic. So CoC is using this confusion to sneak in his own political agenda. How democratic does it sound to you?
Second of all, even if the debate based on blackpatje proposal was started and legal vote requested by him, I still requested the vote first, more than 2 days ago (if you do not count the previous term), as provided by screenshot above - so by chronological order, my proposal would be voted first, and only after that another proposal on this issue could be voted. Of course, when Chairman of Congress applies party favouritism, chronology and democracy are thrown out of window. So once again - Chairman of Congress should work for all Congress members, not only for his party members.
EDIT: blackpatje vote request has been submitted - and indeed, not only it links to the wrong debate (debate on my proposal, and not his), but it was requested days after I did my request (as you can see by the higher number of his message). Therefore there is no legally acceptable explanation on the fact blackpatje's request has been prioritized over the request,which was submitted much sooner.
Third of all, even if blackpatje proposal has been debated, and he asked for the vote first (remember that none of these conditions are fulfilled as shown above), it would be a nice gesture to inform public, and specifically me as author of the proposal, that another vote on the topic has been started instead. Here is such an information provided by Chairman:
... oh right, there is none as well.
All in all, the Chairman of Congress has heavily breached the Congress Law, and allowed party favouritism to be applied in Congress instead of actual democratic procedures. However, there is still time to fix these mistakes, end the illegally started voting, and start the actual voting, which was requested days ago. And I therefore request the Chairman (or his deputy) to do so and restore legality in Congress. Otherwise I will have no other option, but to ask Congress to start Motion of No Confidence due to the reasons mentioned above.
Note that this MoNC I plan to start (if the situation is not cleared and legality restored in time) is not aimed at deputy Chairman, but only Chairman himself. The deputy Chairman Kordak is likely another victim of odan political machination, and so far, his management and way to seek consensus in Congress has been noted positively. Hence why I believe he should be kept in his position, and in case of successful MoNC become temporary Chairman of Congress until successor is found.
Janty F
Concerned citizen of eNetherlands
Concerned citizen of eNetherlands
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Maybe black patje asked for the vote sooner? The proposed vote was discussed in the article, it's just not what you proposed...
If what you say was correct, the debate article with his proposal would be released before mine, his proposal would be properly debated and known in Congress, and CoC would surely inform me another player is already planning to debate and vote on the issue.
None of that happened.
So he didn't ask sooner, neither there is a debate article released with his proposal (which should have been). It is just an illegal proposal, prepared by CoC and his friend behind backs of rest of the Congress (including you).
can you quote the law odan broke? So far I only see a vote on a topic that has been debated as required.
In that case point me to the article, where blackpatje's proposal has been introduced and discussed. As the debating section of the Congress consists of UNL Binnenhof news articles, I assume one exists, because I must have missed the debate on his idea. When I tried the link posted in voting message, I only got to my proposal, which is different, and not voted, despite my request.
There is a debate. 24 hours had passed. A congressman asked for a vote. Nothing against the law there.
Can you point me to introduction and debate of your proposal then? You know, some link to the debate section - aka article, where your proposal is introduced to the public and where Congress and public debates it for more than 24 hours. Something like this, but with your proposal instea😛
https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-congress-proposed-change-monc-procedure-reopened--2696031
Also, once you post the debate link... can you show when did you request the vote? Was it sooner than me? Screenshot of your request message should be enough to prove it 😉 .
You already posted the debate link. So not sure what more you want.....
And screenshot is in congress pm.
The debate link to your proposal. Can't find it anywhere in the debating section.
Put on your glasses perhaps?
Nice!
If you have that link, please post it here, it's really not funny hiding it 🙁 .
i (re)opened the debate for you. "you have that right as a citizen"
congress member blackpatje requested a debate after that debate was open for more than 24 hours "he has that right as a cm"
the starting argument of a debate does not mean that will we be the argument voted upon. "there is nothing in the law that states the final proposed change that will be voted upon has to be in the opening post of a debate"
i perhaps should have been a little more clear that you aren't able to start votes in the message i sent you, but i assumed you knew the law since you were one of the people that made changes to it.
"congress member blackpatje requested a debate"... can you redirect me to his debate then? Because it is not public... is it private? Your link leads me to my debate, which is about totally different proposal. As CoC, you should not link to the wrong debate, so please lead me to the correct one, as I cannot find it on my own. If it exists, of course
"i perhaps should have been a little more clear that you aren't able to start votes in the message i sent you"... and that's why I asked CoC to open the vote for me. Just like Ministers do, when they want to vote on something, but are not part of Congress, so they cannot start the vote. But you chose to neglect your duties, and instead of doing your job, you submitted to party favouritism by promoting non-debated proposal of your friend.
As said in the article - I urge you to fix your mistakes, close the voting on non-debated proposal, and open the voting on debated proposal, as you were supposed to do. People do mistakes - but if you are unwilling to admit them, there is no better solution than removing you from the office, and let someone with actual knowledge to lead Congress.
typo. debate is properly linked.
a gov official can request any cm to start a vote, that does not mean they are obligated to do so.
If a gov official were to request a vote on something vital like a NE for example they might feel morally obligated to do so, but there is nothing in the law that states they are required to.
CoC is merely the facilitator of the vote messages he still needs a cm that want's to start a vote.
And can you give me the link to the debate in that case? The debate with blackpatje's proposal and debate on it? I keep clicking the link, but I keep getting on another proposal instead.
Indeed, you are only a facilitator. So you should follow all requests, including the ones, when someone requests you to start a vote. The fact non-CM cannot open/start a vote means that they cannot open the vote on their own, as they should have no right to be included in voting section of Congress. However that does not mean CoC will neglect their requests, and he should fulfill them. As one of the authors of the Law - that is, how the Law is supposed to work. So better stick to it, and do not invent new interpretations of something, that has worked until now.
perhaps you should read what is in that debate? the proposal being voted upon is discussed in there. with your reasoning the CoC vote would also be wrong since neither candidate were mentioned in the first post...
then perhaps people that rewrote the laws should have included things like that in the law. it isn't in the law so therefore there is not legal way for a citizen to start a vote. sure they can ask a cm to do it for them, but they are not obligated to do that.
All I see in that debate is my proposal being discussed there. And I do not see any comment from blackpatje anywhere near that. Neither do I see his proposal and debate on it anywhere else. Yet, somehow, the discussed proposal is not voted upon, and instead, random ideas from non-participating Congress Member are being voted. Which is interesting. So... link please?
And once again - yes, I cannot start the vote, that one is clear, due to voting message restrictions. But that does not stop me from requesting the vote to be started, which is something you should be able to do as CoC, as you and other CoC's before you did it quite regularly. Why is something so simple so hard for you to accept? Stop being so stubborn and act upon feedback 😉
do you like going in circles? the proposal up for vote is in the debate.
that is not why the CoC is there. a cm still needs to be the initiator in starting votes. the CoC only facilitates the starting so it is done in an orderly manner.
We will go in circles, until you post the link to the article with blackpatje's proposal, older than 24 hours, so Congress had time to debate on it.
"a cm still needs to be the initiator in starting votes. the CoC only facilitates the starting so it is done in an orderly manner"
... that's literaly not, what the law says at all. But hey, if you want to start my vote in orderly manner finally, I am happy eith that result.
you go ahead and keep going in circles.
the law is being followed. case closed for me.
So you will provide no link - because you know it does not exist.
And thankfully you cannot close possible MoNCs against your own person - atleast if you follow the Law 😉
once again you show you do not know the law....
anyways i'm out.
Basd on your current comments, you don't. You only know, how to interpret it to benefit you though - something you are quite good at.
Take some fresh air outside, so you can do your job easier later. Bye 😉 !
*requested a vote after that debate was open for more than 24 hours
debate/vote... lying must be confusing, I know.
Either way, I requested the vote long time before him, and it was only delayed due to you needing to fulfill the requirement of 24 hour debate. So... where is the vote on my proposal 😉 ? And where is the rest of what I ask you to provide (and what you should provide, as you are responsible official)?
typo's happen.
When you are done fixing "typo's" (which should be more on basis of THEIR/THERE, and not DEBATE/VOTE), start fixing the legal issues you caused. Thank you!
no legal issues here. thank you!
You know not repsecting the Law is valid reason for being discharged, right?
so you will be discharged? since i'm following the law to the letter here.
Highly doubt that, otherwise my requested voting would be already finished, blackatje's proposal would be publicly debated, and this article would be edited stating you fixed your mistakes.
Mistakes happen to anyone, odan. Even you. I know our law is long, and it might be difficult to understand and use it correctly for someone, who hadn't use it for a long time. Especially if that person still adheres to old versions, and does not respect the new ones. It happens. But you need to be able to recognize, when mistakes are done. So please, take the feedback, and act upon it to fix them 😉 .
no mistakes are made, the law is being followed to the letter.
So the voting on my proposal has been started? Can you post a screenshot of that, just so I am sure ?
that would be breaking the law.
Voting my proposals is against the Law? That's a new one, I do not remember that to exist...
starting it for you (a normal citizen), yes.
starting if for a cm, no.
Yes, "starting" and "requesting to start" are two different things, as noted... 100 comments ago. Hence why I did not start it myself, but requested you to do it.
The letter of the law and its intentions are different... You may be legally right in ignoring Janty's initial request for a vote as soon as possible, as he is not a CM, and cannot start votes. But he can request you to start a vote, and you could have opened that vote anyway, as you yourself are a CM.
Also Blackpatje did NOT open a vote himself, as he probably lacks several CMs in his friends list, making it an inconvenient move. He requested you to open a vote (so I would consider that similar to Janty F). Yet in his case you decided to grant his request. This makes it seem like you are granting requests in a weird order, with a bias to your own party members, or to your OWN proposal.
If Blackpatje would have opened the vote himself, you would be in the clear. He did something that CMs can indeed do, and you would not do anything wrong by allowing the vote to continue, as indeed the vote is legal according to our lawbook.
he could have, however asking a cm to start a vote that he is not in favor of would be rather strange, and he did not ask me as cm to start a vote but he asked the CoC team.
he requested the CoC team to facilitate the opening of the vote, that has been pretty common since voting has been going on in in-game pm's. partialy since having a vote in multiple pm's if a cm starts it due to not having all cm's as friend is rather tedious. it also makes sure the CoC team can confirm the starting time of a vote.
Right, but if he asked you as CoC team to start a vote you personally are not in favour of, wouldn't that be less strange than if he asked you as CM? Especially if you want to act neutral as CoC team, you should maybe feel even more inclined to start votes you are not in favour off.
It's sort of like a referee being accused of prefering one of the teams, and indeed seemingly doing things in their favour. In chess competition the referee is typically the team captain of one of the teams, so far from neutral. How should he behave? When in doubt, he should rule in favour of the opposing team... (When he is certain of course he can always make the right decision, that's not the hard part.)
I think I am more and more a proponent of the old forum votes, where formatting would be used to mark the changes to laws... And if you as CoC team want to verify the start time of a vote, you also wouldn't need to be online 24/7, etc.
a referee typically does not involve himself with one of the spectators 😉 an ordinary citizen could be classed as that.
and yes imho forum was a lot easier.
or to make a real life comparison to politics. civilians could potentially get some sort of topic into the agenda for debate, they however can't ask/force/demand them to vote on it.
In my point of view this article attempts to confuse and to divide Dutch people. For what reason? If only the columnist understood the issue...
It seems pretty much the same to me with what this player made to Cuban people : a lot of trouble for nothing!
Oh, please give us lesson on how the Dutch Law works. If you need some light to read all those lawbooks... here, you have a light source:
https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/for-scarle-2623387/1/20
hahaha it's obvious that you miss the point of your existence!
... and you believe the point is...?
well, the point is that I'm HONORED by that article you mentioned - it really proves what kind of person you are and in addition that you are in deed and an anti-Greek.
As far as the hypothetical point of your article is concerned please read more carefully my above comment.
Leave Dutch people alone to decide what the debate period will be! Understand the major point and not the minor!
I am one of the Dutch people (unlike you, Mr. Macedonian), and the debate period is not subject I have problem with, neither (I assume) do my opponents. And even if I had a problem with debate period, it would be quite minor problen compared to problem I describe in the article.
I do not believe you are aware of our poltiical systems and status. Also I believe you have may be mistaken that thisnis not a Cuban newspaper 😉
Yeah of course 😉
Additionally the so called 'dividing' is rather quite small as it would consist of I&W against the rest of our political parties. DEMNL, GPN VN etc