The Forgotten Story

Writinglegend

Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Opinion - "The Forgotten Story"
Written by Writinglegend
On the Office of the Supreme Chancellors

On November of this past year, Supreme Chancellor Mousebumples posted an op-ed titled “Why I Resigned” detailing several points regarding why I, as then President, played a role in her resignation. These allegations included playing a game of revenge and having weak interpersonal skills, among other things. It should be noted that at this time Mousebumples was a Supreme Chancellor with Lethen, and people were already privately telling me she was fuming due to my repeal of the Spam Accords -- an international agreement she forged. When the recent discussion of the Office of the Supreme Chancellory (OSC) came about in the Senate legislation Removal of the Supreme Chancellory (2017), my mind immediately went to this story. One thing I have noticed is how this piece Mousebumples wrote, and the actions she took to garner such information, have become silenced and forgotten in the Europeian political void.

From "Why I Resigned" said:
Similarly, he appears to have taken a similar approach with his Ministers. There is minimal content being posted to Tomlinson, and while I can't legally disclose what has been posted there, I saw nothing in the posted content with regards to the Spam Accords or other WA Ministry related content after Malashaan lapsed into inactivity. However, if discussions were continuing to occur on off-site forums, failing to copy that information over to the forum for continuity purposes for the next administration

In this hit piece posted by Supreme Chancellor Mousebumples, which was also edited by Lethen, the tradition of admins and the SC's releasing information from forums that don't apply to them despite their ability was broken. The author went into Tomlinson and released information that hadn't been revealed publicly, which is a clear breaking of the tradition that has been followed for years. It is particularly concerning when such a tradition is reiterated as," I didn't view that as "not applying to me" because I view my role as Supreme Chancellor as trying to help all aspects of the region function as best as possible."

Helping all aspects of the region function does not mean going into a private area and releasing what hasn't been stated. Rather than “helping the region function as best as possible”, the Supreme Chancellor in question went into Tomlinson to reinforce a hit piece against someone she politically disagreed with. If you don't see the issue with that, then ethicality is nonexistent. I never received any form of an apology, and these actions were never addressed as "wrong," “unethical,” or, "breaking tradition". Inaction is a very strong action. It is a reinforcement of the behavior that caused the issue. I am not specifically targeting Mousebumples. I also find Lethen to be partially at fault as an individual who read over and edited the piece prior to publication, although he may have simply missed the details. This means both Supreme Chancellors saw absolutely nothing wrong with the action provided. Both were tolerant of going into Tomlinson and releasing details there using universal viewing privilege powers to reinforce a hit piece against someone they politically disagreed with (again, more benefit of the doubt to Lethen as he simply edited and could have missed it).

I do not have a personal vendetta against Lethen and Mouse. I can sit down and chat with them about stuff and we can have fun for shits and giggles. I don't care about this argument, really, but just simply wish to point out this observation we have seemingly forgot. I’ve seen many statements from people who note they have no clue of any “power abuse” or “political misconduct” from the Supreme Chancellors, thus I felt the need to detail this experience in writing. As Mouse was not an Administrator at the time, she was purely using universal viewing privilege powers granted to her as a Supreme Chancellor to garner such Tomlinson information.

After this event occurred I took a multi-day Leave of Absence because I stopped feeling the game. I felt pushed away. I felt isolated. More importantly, I felt targeted. I didn’t think an individual(s) would use their special powers granted to them out of respect and honor to write a hit piece targeting a political enemy. It felt worse because this was a Supreme Chancellor, and whether I like them or not they’re individuals I feel we can all aspire to be. The worst part about this was not that Mouse went inside of Tomlinson and dared to release what she viewed as a lack of information to support her op-ed, but was the fact that the other Supreme Chancellor in our region collaborated as an editor. No matter who you are, if you have both Supreme Chancellor’s collaborating on a hit piece against you, you will feel attacked by the most prestigious members of our Republic. It was an absolute low point for me.

In my opinion, this forgotten story is where the book of distrust towards the OSC began. Whether rightful or not is another topic for debate, but many individuals looked at the rummaging through Tomlinson and external release as a political usage of power from the OSC. These issues were stressed in recent months, when what many viewed as the Supreme Chancellory “Clique” founded the Coalition for Responsible Politics. Currently, the party holds one Supreme Chancellor who chairs the political party and one Vice Chancellor who is a member. To me, this signals that the populace wishes for a more apolitical Chancellory. Rach, current Minister of the World Assembly, notes this as well when stating, “I'd like to point out that my current preferred solution would be an apolitical Chancellery.” Perhaps, with the widespread view of cliques within our region, citizens want a more insular Chancellory who doesn’t smell of a single group of friends. Or perhaps, individuals simply want to abolish the Chancellory entirely.

Those in-tap with the political climate recently know that this amendment was a long-term frustration that boiled over. By all means, the OSC had multiple attempts to learn from its transgressions and change its potential behavior. Even recently, I’ve heard of the OSC becoming highly involved within Senate matters by lobbying questions to Senators during NES’ confirmation hearing. It’s clear behavior will not change unless there is a rude awakening. That is where this legislation and discussion come into place.

I talked about this with HEM recently, but a completely unbiased, apolitical individual is impossible in a government simulation game that relies on politics. You cannot expect someone to not hold political opinions. What is different in this case is whether it distorts their service in such a role. With a look at our forgotten story, we can see it has distorted service to create a lowered confidence of the office. I don’t have my mind made up on what I feel should be done with the Office, but I happen to not care. What I care for is that those in the Supreme Chancellory recognize how their actions have affected the community and see the very clear, vivid message citizens are sending: we aren’t satisfied. But that message is only conveyed if we release our voices to the public rather than private discord channels. If you have a problem with the actions of the Chancellory or its members, don’t sit silent. Then they won’t realize that it’s wrong. If you have a problem with how we view the Chancellory and the office itself, don’t sit silent. Then we won’t realize we need to change.

With this issue, there is one certainty. A disconnect between the OSC and the citizenry on how political and insular its membership should be is very real. I hope this legislation -- whether I agree with it or not -- will allow for such a region wide discussion to take place in order to bridge such a gap. The answer is, as it usually is, region-wide discourse.
 
A very interesting read, and it is certainly eye-opening. I do have two things of note.

First of all, you are conflating the OSC with the admins. Admins are given universal viewing privileges, not the Supreme Chancellors. Any reference of that should be edited to reflect this actuality. Actually, now your timeline is giving me pause. We've all been reiterating that viewing privileges are admin-only but is this true? Or do we (oddly) give SCs universal viewing privileges as well?

Second of all, as I stated in the thread "Why I Resigned" that you linked:
Even though I helped do some cursory edits, Mouse, I didn't fully read the fleshed-out text until now. Damn. Awaiting some actual answers/explanations from WL then. Or Kraken. Probably Kraken.
I take issue with your continued aspersions - intentional or not - that I was also complicit in this behavior. If I'm doing cursory edits for articles, platforms, etc. I usually don't read the text in-full or in a way that gives me a view of the forest past the trees. Simply put, my blinders are on so I can focus on narrow sections, and I'm looking for grammar and spelling errors (and potential rewrites). I'm not looking at the content itself.

Even if you said things to give me the benefit of the doubt, your narrative right before and after comments like that is that I was complicit and here's italics to emphasize that fact.
 
Apparently if people are using their admin abilities rather than SC abilities for political purposes like this, it's all okay.
 
Rach said:
Apparently if people are using their admin abilities rather than SC abilities for political purposes like this, it's all okay.
That is not at all what I am saying, Rach. :rolleyes: I didn't think my point needed elaborating, but I'll bite.

As I and others have been saying all day in the Grand Hall and CA (and in private and public on Discord), people are conflating the privileges and duties of the two roles in this ongoing discussion. Its been an ongoing problem, though.
 
Lethen said:
Rach said:
Apparently if people are using their admin abilities rather than SC abilities for political purposes like this, it's all okay.
That is not at all what I am saying, Rach. :rolleyes: I didn't think my point needed elaborating, but I'll bite.

As I and others have been saying all day in the Grand Hall and CA (and in private and public on Discord), people are conflating the privileges and duties of the two roles in this ongoing discussion. Its been an ongoing problem, though.
Alright, then how about you address what you see as Admins using their admin abilities for political purposes? Both you and Drecq have brought this up in two different instances. Do you feel admins should be using their admin abilities for personal political fights?
 
Of course not, but I also don't think it is my place to speak on such matters when HEM as Chief Admin has yet to weigh in himself. I'd rather let him speak first since its ultimately his call.
 
If I remember correctly the reason this was not seen as a violation of admin policy was because she had viewing rights as SC, but you lethen are now saying that is false, so I am confused because you are calling people out on being wrong about SC's having acces to the cabinet when members of the chancellery were the ones that originally made that claim.

Mouse said:
I didn't have access to Tomlinson until I was made SC, as I hadn't been in Cabinet. I spoke with both Trinn and HEM (and I thought you - though perhaps that was an oversight on my part) upon their election/ascension to clarify that I'm happy to help them and their administrations as a semi-unofficial MwP due to my Tomlinson access as Supreme Chancellor.
 
So we established we are both confused, got it Noto :p
 
Lethen said:
So we established we are both confused, got it Noto :p
I am only confused as to whether you are falsely calling me out or whether the previous statements by Mouse were false, because one of two is true.
 
Mousebumples was not an admin at the time of the alleged leak. She had universal viewing privileges owning to her role as Supreme Chancellor.
 
That is weird. Why do SCs have universal viewing privileges? It doesnt exactly help with the job and its a very weird perk to have.
 
An important article and I'm glad more people are at the least reintroduced to this important incident. Again, though, I hope people won't be making their decision on this topic based on how they feel about Mouse or even Lethen's service. This is about a bill pertaining to the Office, not its holders. If you want to get rid of them, get rid of them. The Office has served us well. That can't be disputed.
 
Common-Sense Politics said:
An important article and I'm glad more people are at the least reintroduced to this important incident. Again, though, I hope people won't be making their decision on this topic based on how they feel about Mouse or even Lethen's service. This is about a bill pertaining to the Office, not its holders. If you want to get rid of them, get rid of them. The Office has served us well. That can't be disputed.
This is more or less how I feel about it, but introspection can be a valuable tool, and the CA discussion may have some potential.
 
WL and I had chatted on this topic a bit last night before he posted the article.

I agreed with him in his sentiment, understood his frustrations, and agreed that ultimately Mouse - in this case - probably did overstep her bounds. I don't believe she deserves the level of heat she's getting directed at her recently, but McEntire and Erica summed up what should likely be better approaches with each other in the other recent EBC article.

I did however pose the question to Writinglegend wondering if the Chancellery has a duty to publicly comment on a President's use, or lack thereof, of the tools at their disposal. The example I gave to WL was if a President decided to ignore the EAAC altogether during the term, wouldn't the members of the EAAC be in the right to call that out? It's a tough spot since the usage of the EAAC (and its topics) are classified but if a President is not engaging in such a matter shouldn't that be brought to the public's attention?

Likewise, if a President decides not to use Tomlinson at all or similar; does the public deserve the right to know that?

Ultimately, I think that the public does deserve to know if their elected officials aren't performing or engaging to their best ability behind the scenes. But, I understand it's a gray area to actually traverse.
 
Their duty is written in law and I think it's absolutely correct to stick to that.

The usage of Tomlinson did, in my humble view, at no time influence the work of the Ministers negatively. At least I can say that for myself. If there had indeed been a negative influence on the term, and I'd say the same about your EAAC case*, then I think it's for the electorate to deal with that accordingly. Otherwise you might create an environment where leaks are warranted by subjective feelings of duty, and if that's not even outright dangerous, I at least consider it to be a break from the rule of law.

* Naturally, within reason. If the EAAC had knowledge of some major threat and the President ignored it, I also believe someone should be informed about that. (Not necessarily the public though)
 
It should be the duty of those with privileges within those arenas to speak out. I was AG during WL's term, and there was at least a two week period where there was literally not a single post in Tomlinson and no official chat in the Discord channel either. I know I had vented to Mouse a few times about the lack of visible direction from WL during that term - I couldn't speak to if WL or Aex (who was VP) were directly communicating with Ministers as my role as AG didn't really require much one-on-one with either of them. It's then possible that, in her ability as an Admin, she was able to confirm that I was correct in saying that Tomlinson had seen little use. Was it her place to call WL out? Was it mine (or another member of the Executive)? But WL was burnt out that term and the public does have, in my opinion, the right to know if the President is working to the best of his ability.
 
Trinnien said:
It should be the duty of those with privileges within those arenas to speak out. I was AG during WL's term, and there was at least a two week period where there was literally not a single post in Tomlinson and no official chat in the Discord channel either. I know I had vented to Mouse a few times about the lack of visible direction from WL during that term - I couldn't speak to if WL or Aex (who was VP) were directly communicating with Ministers as my role as AG didn't really require much one-on-one with either of them. It's then possible that, in her ability as an Admin, she was able to confirm that I was correct in saying that Tomlinson had seen little use. Was it her place to call WL out? Was it mine (or another member of the Executive)? But WL was burnt out that term and the public does have, in my opinion, the right to know if the President is working to the best of his ability.
Now that probably doesn't change much, I know I would still disagree with the handling in both cases, but Mouse was in fact a SC and not an admin, as others have noticed before. What I will also say is that I don't think you can equate the cases of you talking about your habits of interaction with WL as your President or Mouse as SC talking about the subforum contents of a government she did not belong to.

Anyways, what you are saying is that it should be a duty and it's your opinion that the public has a right to know. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you, because there is neither such a duty enshrined in our law nor is it a matter of views whether there is a right to know. If you wish to change that for the future, I'd still disagree with you based on reasons I have told in here before, but then I think you should fight for it legislatively. I can imagine you'd find others who agree with you. As it stands, in regards to the handling of the case of this article or hypothetical similar cases, I don't think there is an excuse. And whether the handling can be forgiven is a different matter that I don't want to delve into - I just wanted to make an argument about the handling and behaviour in general, not about characters.
 
Back
Top