EO Referendum Roiled By Allegations Of 'Quid Pro Quo'

[Drecq]

You don't think it's relevant for citizens to know that one of their leaders changed positions on an issue, apparently, because he was offered a favor?

It's an enormous stretch to call what OD did "offering a favor". No one can reasonably conclude that OD was speaking on behalf of Drecq. Even without Drecq's explicit denial, the thought is just ludicrous on its face. He was merely suggesting/implying that Drecq would look favorably on it and might then, in the future, be partial to supporting things Nate might do. That's hardly a quid pro quo, in my opinion, and really seems more like political advice that speaks favorably to the magnitude of Drecq's social standing in the region. Can you realistically say that no one has ever changed their mind on an issue because of Drecq's influence? I'm not knocking him for this, mind you, just saying.

Although when people change their mind and agree with Drecq there's a 75% chance he'll flip his vote to keep the discussion going because Drecq likes political arguments so much ?

Sorry Drecq, too good of an opportunity to pass up

Eh. Its happened.

 

[Aexnidaral]

You don't think it's relevant for citizens to know that one of their leaders changed positions on an issue, apparently, because he was offered a favor?

It's an enormous stretch to call what OD did "offering a favor". No one can reasonably conclude that OD was speaking on behalf of Drecq. Even without Drecq's explicit denial, the thought is just ludicrous on its face. He was merely suggesting/implying that Drecq would look favorably on it and might then, in the future, be partial to supporting things Nate might do. That's hardly a quid pro quo, in my opinion, and really seems more like political advice that speaks favorably to the magnitude of Drecq's social standing in the region. Can you realistically say that no one has ever changed their mind on an issue because of Drecq's influence? I'm not knocking him for this, mind you, just saying.

HEM didn't post the screenshot, but what started all of this is a screenshot where OD says "want to do me a favor and sign Drecq's petition?", Xecrio replies with "why?", OD replies with "Then he might owe you.", to which Xecrio replies "okok, done." and then OD replied with "thanks, I owe you one now, too."

Personally, I'm less concerned about the Drecq aspect of it (which is neither the focus of what HEM is saying because it's obvious Drecq didn't know someone was doing this and wouldn't offer favors like that, nor does Drecq not knowing absolve OD from what he said and did) and more concerned about the fact that we had a Minister going to another Minister offering favors for someone to not only take a specific position, but directly switch their public support for something. Ultimately, it's obvious the referendum would've met the required number of signatures either way, but it is not a good thing to have public officials trying to buy off someone else with promises of vague favors owed.

While this isn't as big of a deal as, say, what Punchwood did -- it's not even that fine of a line, it's kind of the starting point for more explicit instances of this kind of behavior and it's bad all around. It's different to approach someone and say "hey, can you switch your position on this because (X Y Z reasons" than just going to someone and saying "hey do something for me because we might owe you." Canvassing and trying to get people to vote certain ways is perfectly normal in a democracy, but this is not that. And I think it's important to call out this kind of behavior because of that.

 

[Lethen]

You don't think it's relevant for citizens to know that one of their leaders changed positions on an issue, apparently, because he was offered a favor?

It's an enormous stretch to call what OD did "offering a favor". No one can reasonably conclude that OD was speaking on behalf of Drecq. Even without Drecq's explicit denial, the thought is just ludicrous on its face. He was merely suggesting/implying that Drecq would look favorably on it and might then, in the future, be partial to supporting things Nate might do. That's hardly a quid pro quo, in my opinion, and really seems more like political advice that speaks favorably to the magnitude of Drecq's social standing in the region. Can you realistically say that no one has ever changed their mind on an issue because of Drecq's influence? I'm not knocking him for this, mind you, just saying.

I actually think the whole thing is weirder that someone is offering a favor from someone else without their consent lol

Yea, that stood out to me too. It seemed strange.

 

[Deepest House]

I have seen the screenshot in question. I didn’t think this was a big deal. I looked at it along the lines of “hey, if you support Drecq, he may support you in something. And me too.”

I declined to write a piece on this when presented with the opportunity because I didn’t think this was an issue that was very controversial.

And while I don’t necessarily think the author or ENN is trying to do this, I can see how political rivals of OD would try to turn this into a scandal to damage him politically.

I also have to wonder if it were someone other than OD, if there’d be anyone who really even cared.

And we would all be lying if we hadn’t seen “hey, support me on this and I’ll have your back on something going forward.” And those other times, it has never been an issue.

 

[Pichtonia]

After the Punchwood incident, there was a lot of momentum against this sort of behaviour, so much so that there was a Senate initiative to change our criminal law in that regard. I'm glad that it didn't went through, because I think it is right for our voters to make the call whether something is going too far (beyond the current criminal code). And DH is also right when he insinuates that many of us would be wrong to say we never encountered or even engaged in such behaviour. This sort of politicking has always sort of existed and will probably always exist. BUT, just because it has been done before doesn't mean it's not sketchy. It just means that previously it was far more normal, and that doesn't mean it was always any good.

If HEM now chooses to reveal that behaviour, I think it's good for our culture of transparency that we have become more accustomed to. People can form their own view, as they evidently do, and decide for themselves whether they find it right or wrong or something in between.

Personally, I don't think it's a huge scandal. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that no one here thinks it's a huge scandal. We'll all move on and everything will be fine, I'm not even sure the referendum is hugely tainted, because all sides know and admit it was safe. But I think it was wrong, and I'm absolutely confused why OD felt the need to make that comment (and in the name of Drecq, too). It was just very unnecessary and avoidable.

 

[Prim]

After the Punchwood incident, there was a lot of momentum against this sort of behaviour, so much so that there was a Senate initiative to change our criminal law in that regard. I'm glad that it didn't went through, because I think it is right for our voters to make the call whether something is going too far (beyond the current criminal code). And DH is also right when he insinuates that many of us would be wrong to say we never encountered or even engaged in such behaviour. This sort of politicking has always sort of existed and will probably always exist. BUT, just because it has been done before doesn't mean it's not sketchy. It just means that previously it was far more normal, and that doesn't mean it was always any good.

If HEM now chooses to reveal that behaviour, I think it's good for our culture of transparency that we have become more accustomed to. People can form their own view, as they evidently do, and decide for themselves whether they find it right or wrong or something in between.

Personally, I don't think it's a huge scandal. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that no one here thinks it's a huge scandal. We'll all move on and everything will be fine, I'm not even sure the referendum is hugely tainted, because all sides know and admit it was safe. But I think it was wrong, and I'm absolutely confused why OD felt the need to make that comment (and in the name of Drecq, too). It was just very unnecessary and avoidable.

Following the Punchwood situation, there was discussion about adding "anything of monetary value or substantive favors" to the charge of bribery. Several people argued against this addition and it was ultimately not included mainly because people thought it would hamper or restrict normal "horse trading" during campaigns and elections, and people generally agreed with that sentiment.

 

[cookiespaigentland]

I’m really late to this but I just want to put out my opinion, which really can be summed up in two sentences:

1) This is not as big of a deal as the article makes out,

2) However, this article shows that there is lots of transparency within Europeia, which is good.

Overall though, this is not that big of a deal. It just seems like OD wanted enough signatures on the petition so reached out to someone and instead of trying to convince them, he offered a favour. And I don’t think that’s a good thing but I also don’t think it’s newsworthy. This exchange was obvious made in a more relaxed atmosphere and not the 100% serious atmosphere that this article makes out. I hope this ‘scandal’ (if it’s even worth being called that) doesn’t damage anyone’s career, because it really shouldn’t.

 

[HEM]

I’m really late to this but I just want to put out my opinion, which really can be summed up in two sentences:

1) This is not as big of a deal as the article makes out,

2) However, this article shows that there is lots of transparency within Europeia, which is good.

Overall though, this is not that big of a deal. It just seems like OD wanted enough signatures on the petition so reached out to someone and instead of trying to convince them, he offered a favour. And I don’t think that’s a good thing but I also don’t think it’s newsworthy. This exchange was obvious made in a more relaxed atmosphere and not the 100% serious atmosphere that this article makes out. I hope this ‘scandal’ (if it’s even worth being called that) doesn’t damage anyone’s career, because it really shouldn’t.

In your opinion, at what point should the media be reporting on exchanges/trades between Cabinet Ministers to alter their policy positions?

 

[Prim]

HEM, no one's saying you shouldn't have reported it if you feel strongly about it. But collectively it seems like people consider this a nothingburger of a story. This article probably didn't change a lot of minds, I don't think.

We'll see how the referendum goes, it needs 60% support in order to pass.

 

[HEM]

HEM, no one's saying you shouldn't have reported it if you feel strongly about it. But collectively it seems like people consider this a nothingburger of a story. This article probably didn't change a lot of minds, I don't think.

We'll see how the referendum goes, it needs 60% support in order to pass.

Cookies said that they didn't think it was newsworthy, so I think my question is relevant and the answer would be informative!

 

[Aexnidaral]

HEM, no one's saying you shouldn't have reported it if you feel strongly about it. But collectively it seems like people consider this a nothingburger of a story. This article probably didn't change a lot of minds, I don't think.

We'll see how the referendum goes, it needs 60% support in order to pass.

I didn't read this story as HEM trying to change anyone's mind on how to vote on the referendum?

 

[JayDee]

I thought this was a satire until I saw the screenshot.

Are we really so starved for drama here?

 

[cookiespaigentland]

I’m really late to this but I just want to put out my opinion, which really can be summed up in two sentences:

1) This is not as big of a deal as the article makes out,

2) However, this article shows that there is lots of transparency within Europeia, which is good.

Overall though, this is not that big of a deal. It just seems like OD wanted enough signatures on the petition so reached out to someone and instead of trying to convince them, he offered a favour. And I don’t think that’s a good thing but I also don’t think it’s newsworthy. This exchange was obvious made in a more relaxed atmosphere and not the 100% serious atmosphere that this article makes out. I hope this ‘scandal’ (if it’s even worth being called that) doesn’t damage anyone’s career, because it really shouldn’t.

In your opinion, at what point should the media be reporting on exchanges/trades between Cabinet Ministers to alter their policy positions?

I mean I just think if someone is doing serious bribery, then I can understand why that would be a newsworthy story. But this wasn’t serious bribery imo, it just wasn’t a big deal

 

[Sopo]

I realize that Europeia has become increasingly social and less political over time, and some of our newer members may not be used to this kind of backroom cajoling or bargaining--but it still happens. I don't think this was particularly flagrant, but I'd encourage everyone to make up their own mind based on facts, not on empty promises. It's certainly understandable to change your opinion based on new information or a persuasive argument, but too many flip flops based on promises, empty or otherwise, don't reflect well on you. In conclusion, integrity is important.

Honestly, this whole thing is just really weird to me.