Memoirs: MCXA, Vox Populi, and the true meaning of loyalty.

[jerdge]

Therefore, I talked to Schattenmann once more and volunteered to work as an informant. I saw this as the best way to move MCXA away from NPO, because not only were the Vox Senate better equipped to help me transform MCXA, but I received a lot of intelligence from them that helped me to direct MCXA and understand world politics better.

If we accept loyalty to MCXA as faithfulness or devotion to it, then I beg you to consider who displayed loyalty to MCXA: I, the informer who worked not against MCXA, but to save it as dedicated Minister of Foreign Affairs, or those members of MCXA’s government who were largely inactive and allowed an alliance of 700 members to crumble to nothing? Perhaps we could spend some time in reflection over the true meaning of loyalty... for not everything is, or has to be, so cut and dry.

I find the two quotes above to be rather contradictory: you claim you were working for the good of the MCXA - for democracy against dictatorship - and at the same time you justify your (at the very least) opaque scheme to make of the MCXA what you thought was the best for it.

I am afraid that democracy is not that government in which you manipulate the citizens when you can't convince them...

That said, I like you and I think that this was just one more instance in which the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" proved to be true.

I also blame my dear Shantamantan.

[Electron Sponge]

I am afraid that democracy is not that government in which you manipulate the citizens when you can't convince them...

MCXA isn't much of a democracy anyway. More of a rotating oligarchic elected dictatorship. (I just made that term up on the spot! Impressive eh? It's almost not contradictory too!)

[jerdge]

[...] rotating oligarchic elected dictatorship. (I just made that term up on the spot! Impressive eh? [...])

This is why they call you "Mister Wonderful". All the two of them!

[Supa_Troop3r]

Can't say I cared much about the spying parts. I being ex-MCXA government find it an interesting read about the TSO part. Not surprising but interesting none the less.

[Valerius]

Fran, it sucks that I'm getting to this just now, when it's already ten pages deep.

Though I already knew most of this, it was interetsing for me to read your experiences summarised. I can only respect you more. And I am proud to have played a part - however small - in the snatching of your political innonence.

[shahman]

That...was beautifully written.

[Emperor José]

Well, seems I'm 10 pages late, but I still feel the need to clarify something: there was never a pro-democracy vs. pro-dictatorship debate in MCXA. It was a level of transparency debate. I was myself a High Council member, and I supported the release of HC topics to the public after 30 days, with the exception of topics which were still deemed sensitive. I was a supporter of fairly high levels of transparency compared to many others. Of course, everyone didn't have the same view, and some such as nc1701 wanted such extreme levels of transparency that MCXA would have been an easy target for...well, spies. No one ever advocated the elimination of the High Council or the allocation of more powers to the Co-Chancellors. In fact, the High Council was increased in size from 9 to 13 members, meaning more representation for the masses, more democracy. Your view of the topic is not only simplistic but highly skewed as well.

I'd also like to take a moment to point out one inconsistency I see in your argument: you claim that you were a huge supporter of democracy, yet you felt the need to undermine the majority and spy to move MCXA in the right direction. If you were a true advocate of democracy, you would have attempted to achieve the changes you wanted via democratic process, no? And if you had been defeated in those attempts by a majority, you would have understood that part of democracy is losing some battles and winning some, no? Your argument doesn't add up. Apparently you didn't understand the ideals you claimed you stood for.

[Gatherum]

Did ODN knowingly let him in under different forum name but with the same nation, but hidden? Or does he have 2 nations from back when it was allowed to do so?

Neither. I re-rolled.

I'd also like to take a moment to point out one inconsistency I see in your argument: you claim that you were a huge supporter of democracy, yet you felt the need to undermine the majority and spy to move MCXA in the right direction. If you were a true advocate of democracy, you would have attempted to achieve the changes you wanted via democratic process, no? And if you had been defeated in those attempts by a majority, you would have understood that part of democracy is losing some battles and winning some, no? Your argument doesn't add up. Apparently you didn't understand the ideals you claimed you stood for.

As has been stated by other TSO members within this very thread, the due process was unreliable because the membership was inactive and detached, not to mention that most ideas that Fran brought forward were denied by Fresh or otherwise, there was someone or something getting in the way. As far as I can remember, she never had the opportunity to bring these things to the majority, therefore all battles were lost before they began.

In reality, there is no real element within the MCXA, past or present, that truly advocates Democracy, for it is only a Democratic alliance in name, not in practice.

EDIT: I direct your attention to the post below me, for it by a former MCXA'er who has a better understanding of MCXA law.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Gatherum

[theArrowheadian]

Well, seems I'm 10 pages late, but I still feel the need to clarify something: there was never a pro-democracy vs. pro-dictatorship debate in MCXA. It was a level of transparency debate. I was myself a High Council member, and I supported the release of HC topics to the public after 30 days, with the exception of topics which were still deemed sensitive. I was a supporter of fairly high levels of transparency compared to many others. Of course, everyone didn't have the same view, and some such as nc1701 wanted such extreme levels of transparency that MCXA would have been an easy target for...well, spies. No one ever advocated the elimination of the High Council or the allocation of more powers to the Co-Chancellors. In fact, the High Council was increased in size from 9 to 13 members, meaning more representation for the masses, more democracy. Your view of the topic is not only simplistic but highly skewed as well.

I'd also like to take a moment to point out one inconsistency I see in your argument: you claim that you were a huge supporter of democracy, yet you felt the need to undermine the majority and spy to move MCXA in the right direction. If you were a true advocate of democracy, you would have attempted to achieve the changes you wanted via democratic process, no? And if you had been defeated in those attempts by a majority, you would have understood that part of democracy is losing some battles and winning some, no? Your argument doesn't add up. Apparently you didn't understand the ideals you claimed you stood for.

Jose, firstly the pro-democracy vs pro-dictatorship debate didn't happen like you said, but sides were apparent and I believe that was the point.

Second, the democratic process didn't work b/c of the way voting occurred and how campaigns were run. The whole idea of endorsements messed everything up. As soon as current councilor or chancellor endorsed X it basically meant that person would be on the next High Council. Another great flaw was that the Co-Chancellor was too powerful of a position, especially when I in MCXA where there really was only one Co-Chancellor present. The Co-Chancellor being on the High Council in the first play should be a red flag and then the ability to appoint another member to the High Council and then since there was only 1 standing Co-Chancellor this meant that Sam appointed 2 people including himself on the High Council. So that mean means 3/13ths of the HC minus a CC so that means really 1/4 of the HC was in Sam's back pocket, not to mention the CC's had the power to veto anything they didn't like for any reason w/o override. Not to mention the only way to remove a Chancellor was via High Council minus the CC's vote of course.

So that all adds up to change only comes if a both Co-Chancellors want it and since there was really only 1 standing Co-Chancellor for the majority of my time in MCXA the alliance was under Sam's control. Nothing could get enacted with his okay because if he didn't like it he could have just vetoed.

[Emperor José]

So that all adds up to change only comes if a both Co-Chancellors want it and since there was really only 1 standing Co-Chancellor for the majority of my time in MCXA the alliance was under Sam's control. Nothing could get enacted with his okay because if he didn't like it he could have just vetoed.

And he did that how many times...? None, as far as I can remember.

I don't think he ever appointed a HC member to serve as Ololiqui's pick, either.

My point is simply that it wasn't as simple as Fran makes it out to be.

[Gatherum]

Wrong

We never planned to leave this early until we were ASKED to leave instead of doing the staggered resigning by the overtaking MCXA government. I can even remember Francesca being among those

I am sorry I didn't get to this eariler.

Have you logs or proof of this? I see no evidence pointing to TSO being asked to leave, and I have ample reason to believe that those in TSO left of their own accord.

[Margrave]

You know nothing of loyalty except to self.

One who is not loyal to one's own ideals has no right to be named among the children of men.

[Harold the Saxon]

Alliances are formed and bound by the words and honour of a sovereign contract which binds those who agree to it. I don't need to take out the MCXA charter to tell you that both betraying and spying on your alliance are a breach of this contract. The rest of your post attempts to clean it up by improving your ethos with virtuous characteristics. That's nice, but I don't play the empathy game.

To those who consider spying justified, my response is not one simply of 'spying is wrong'. To me, spying is a destruction of this agreement of the nations of an alliance who choose to compose its membership. When we allow some to disobey any of these rules, we encounter a free rider problem where others may wish to do the same based on the premise that others have been breaching the contract for their own benefit. If we say spying is ok, then we face much more serious problems in terms of applications, acceptances, alliance compositions, and, mostly importantly, alliance trust. Without trust, any cooperative organisation will not function. What Francesca did was to destroy such trust and faith.

Is there a right and wrong to this? Yes, I believe - it is wrong to break the agreement you bind yourself to. If you don't like it, leave, do not spy. Doing 'what is right' was possible through political channels in your alliance. Regardless of how ineffective you stated them to be, you are not ultra vires. If you think that your intentions were good enough to make you so, then you are simply making an illusion out of the crime.

Finally, I will not count on the 'good-heartedness' of your character to defend these actions. I believe actions reflect character. This action reflects dishonesty and disloyalty. Spin it how you like. What is relevant to the action is the action itself, not your virtues.

[Roadie]

One who is not loyal to one's own ideals has no right to be named among the children of men.

I would think one can be loyal to their own ideals without spying, correct?

[Gatherum]

I would think one can be loyal to their own ideals without spying, correct?

Indeed. And I would think one can be loyal to their own ideals with spying, correct?

[SleepiB]

I am sorry I didn't get to this eariler.

Have you logs or proof of this?

Yes.

I see no evidence pointing to TSO being asked to leave, and I have ample reason to believe that those in TSO left of their own accord.

Context, Gatherum. We originally intended to serve out our terms while training people to take over our responsibilities, but were asked to leave quickly instead.

[SleepiB]

Indeed. And I would think one can be loyal to their own ideals with spying, correct?

I would think one can violate his or her ideals by spying, correct?

[VIdiot the Great]

Indeed. And I would think one can be loyal to their own ideals with spying, correct?

Absolutely, so long as one of your ideals is 'lying.'

[neneko]

First of all I don't mind spying. It's a means to an end. Not the most straightforward and honest one but as the underdog in a conflict you usually don't have much choice since all the 'honorable' methods are based on that the stronger side wins.

Spying comes with a few downsides though. One of them is that you have to betray people that trust you.

This is why I think the OP is rather silly. Fran is trying to shrug off the downsides of spying by claiming that she acted in the interest of a majority of the alliance. This makes no sense.

G. Elections

Elections shall occur on the second Friday of every other month, preceeded by a campaign period of appropriate length; both of which shall be overseen by the eligible Chancellors.

Chancellors: One Chancellor shall be elected in a voting period lasting 48 hours. The candidate receiving more than 50% of the vote shall be seated as a Chancellor, or should no candidate receive at least 50%, then the top 2 candidates shall participate in a run-off election lasting 48 hours.

Ministers: Four Ministers shall be independently elected in a voting period lasting 48 hours. The candidate for each Ministry receiving more than 50% of the vote shall become that Minister, or should no candidate for a Ministry receive at least 50%, then the top 2 candidates shall participate in a run-off election lasting 48 hours.

Members-At-Large: Two Members-At-Large shall be elected in a voting period lasting 48 hours. The two candidates with the most votes after 48 hours shall become the Members-At-Large.

The whole argument falls here. MCXA is a democratic alliance. Unless the charter was broken there is no way for a "incrowd" to steal power from the people.

The fact is that a majority of MCXA or at least a majority of its active members agreed with the actions of the sitting government. Fran however did not and when she failed to get things her way through conventional means abiding by the charter and alliance she swore loyalty to she decided to betray the majority of MCXA and its government. She might have had good intentions and were sure that she knew much better than everyone else in MCXA what was good for them or she could have done this to make a name for herself. No matter what her objectives were though it's a fact that she acted against the wish of the people of MCXA and that is not what loyalty is.

She did a huge favor to karma though and I'm very grateful for her efforts. Without her and people like her this would have been a much harder fought war than it is now. I think that the end justify the means and every spy have worked hard for their goals. No doubt for various personal reasons but worked hard none the less. The people that spied did betray the people that trusted them though and in most cases, this one specificaly, went directly against the wishes of the people that put their trust in them. There's no rinsing your hands of that. The act is done.

Most of the spies will most likely not admit what they did and only a select few will know who they were. They have good reasons not to admit to spying. The ones that did come out in the open with it did that for their own reasons. I won't speculate in why Fran choose to tell the world what she did but I'm sure she had her reasons. It comes with benifits but the right to claim that you were loyal to the ones you spied on is not one of them.

Edited June 4, 2009 by neneko

[SonOfHoward]

I read this when you first posted but I'm just replying now.

During you time as MoFA in MCXA you were the bright light that made me think MCXA might turn around. Too bad it didn't work out, you did what you thought was right. From my standing point in my own alliance I was hoping for the same things as you were; essentially having my alliance forge it's own path. I think where VE succeeded was a parliament that encouraged free and open discussion on all subjects which allowed us to explore different points of view and possibilities. A gov't cannot function by suppressing voices of it's own parliament.

I did so much in my term as MoFA that there simply isn’t time to write it all. Anyone who has worked at this level will have some idea what is involved, but let me tell you that struggling to repair the friendships of an alliance that has had the original government stripped from it is tremendously hard, not to mention that the previous MoFA had let our foreign affairs department deteriorate badly. This was on top of normal MoFA requirements, like embassy creation, masking, and my new diplomatic co-ordination centre to supervise the progress of my diplomats.

Tell me about it. What you were able to accomplish rebuilding relations on top of the regular work load is commendable. That's the type of dedication and loyalty that often gets overlooked. Glad to have you in VE.

[Gatherum]

Yes.

Then share them.

Context, Gatherum. We originally intended to serve out our terms while training people to take over our responsibilities, but were asked to leave quickly instead.

See above.

I would think one can violate his or her ideals by spying, correct?

Indeed. I would think that one can spy without violating one's ideals, correct?

Absolutely, so long as one of your ideals is 'lying.'

That, of course, depends on the spy. I, for one, managed to spy without lying at all. It was tricky...and ODN oft found me suspicious as a result, but it worked.

[joracy]

It is my understanding that at one point in time the co-councilors were appointed(As were a number of members of the HC?)

EDIT: I TOTALLY CALLED YOU AS A VOX SPY.

Edited June 5, 2009 by joracy

[Gatherum]

EDIT: I TOTALLY CALLED YOU AS A VOX SPY.

You did, but, like the rest of you, you had no solid proof...

...or...if you did, you didn't act on it.

[Sunstar]

Yeah, Gatherum to be honest we had you pegged within two days. While we certainly enjoyed your company, your IPs linked all over the place, and pretty well everyone in gov/administration believed you were one of our Vox friends. You were also nowhere near any influential position, sorry.

We still think you're fun though.

[Starfox101]

You were one of our best spies, Francesca.

Thanks.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Starfox101