Punchwood Accused of Soliciting Cabinet Job in Return for Endorsement



Punchwood Accused of Soliciting Cabinet Job in Return for Endorsement
By Deepest House

(Europeia - March 3, 2019) – The Izzy and Rand campaigns have accused Punchwood of seeking a Cabinet post in return for an official endorsement, according to statements made by those campaigns to the EBC. For his part, Punchwood denies the allegation.

“Punchwood tried to bribe both of our tickets, a government position in exchange for his political support,” said Izzy, after approaching the EBC correspondent to disclose the matter on behalf of the campaigns. The campaigns provided evidence to support their claims, which the EBC reviewed and used to inform this article.

When it became clear that he would not be in the run-off election, Punchwood approached Izzy with a claim that Rand and GraVandius were seeking his endorsement and had offered him a Cabinet position.

“Rand and GraV are already asking for my endorsement in such a runoff, so it’s only fair that I ask you why I should support you in a runoff,” Punchwood said to Izzy. Izzy responded by praising Rand’s work ethic, but criticizing his recent tendency work through sickness, stating that he’ll “put work before his health and in the long term that will end poorly.”

“Listen they offered me a Cabinet position working with both branches of the exec regarding dispatches and foreign updates. It’s tempting but I’m still open to supporting you,” Punchwood responded. The conversation then ended with Izzy stating he need to speak to his running mate Comrade Prim.

Punchwood’s claim to posses the offer of a Cabinet position from the Rand campaign was false. Not knowing the above conversation between Punchwood and Izzy took place, Rand and GraVandius contacted Punchwood to seek his endorsement. When approached by that ticket, Punchwood claimed Izzy offered him to be the new chief of staff should he win. “It’s hard to say no to that. However, I am prepared to hear you both out,” he said. The claim of an offer to be chief of staff was also false.

“Chief of Staff is obviously a nice offer which makes sense for Izzy due to that experience gap,” GraVandius responded. He then counteroffered a position within the Ministry of Communications to manage the upvote squad and inter-executive branch collaboration on dispatches and external communications.

Punchwood inquired if the position would be a Cabinet-level post, but GraVandius told him it would operate effectively as a deputy-level job within the ministry. Punchwood pledged to respond to the offer shortly.

Meanwhile, Izzy had been discussing the situation with his running mate, Comrade Prim. With those discussions complete, he reached back out to Punchwood.

“After discussing the issue, Prim and I have decided that you should just go ahead and give your endorsement to Rand. We aren’t interested,” he told Punchwood. From there the conversation devolved into interpersonal squabbling, with Punchwood admitting the offer to be chief of staff was false.

“Izzy, Rand never even offered me a Cabinet position … I wanted to endorse the person who most shared my values. You chose not say what made you the better candidate which is why I’m disappointed,” Punchwood said.

The conversation ended shortly thereafter, with Punchwood characterizing the situation as a test of Izzy’s character and balance between values and ambition. “Had you offered me a job, it would be the latter for sure, but you never once attempted to big yourself up, just attack your opponent,” referring to the criticism of Rand campaigning hard through sickness.

Afterward, Punchwood publicly endorsed the Rand/GraVandius ticket, which prompted an immediate response from Izzy’s running mate Comrade Prim. “Interesting endorsement from Punchwood.... It sure would be very odd if Punchwood ends up being nominated for a Ministry position if they win,” he said. Comrade Prim would later go on to say “[H]is insinuation that he was being offered a Ministry, and then trying to shake us down for similar promises, was beyond the pale.”

As additional endorsements continued to roll in for the Rand/GraVandius ticket, Rand took the opportunity to directly address any concern that Punchwood’s endorsement was the result of offering a cabinet position. “[N]o cabinet post was discussed with Punchwood, and we are not planning any nominations at this time. Punchwood's endorsement is based on the merit of our ticket, and we are immensely grateful for his support,” he said at a campaign stop during the run-off election.

Afterward, Rand privately thanked Punchwood for the endorsement. Punchwood responded by commenting “You had the best vision and experience for the job and also showed you had the passion for the job – not giving in to bribery.”

Rand also told Punchwood that he would announce that no cabinet post was planned, and he asked if Punchwood planned to make a public statement that Izzy and Comrade Prim had offered a Cabinet position to him. “I won’t be telling people that Izzy offer me one and I’d prefer it if you didn’t either,” Punchwood said as he demurred. “Elections should be won on ideas not background deals or dirt on other candidates.”

Privately, Rand spoke with Comrade Prim about the situation, and Punchwood’s alleged scheme was revealed. Shortly thereafter, Izzy initiated contact with this correspondent. The EBC reached out to Punchwood for comment.

“I never made a request,” Punchwood said about soliciting a Cabinet level job in return for an endorsement. “When I recognised that I had lost the election I knew that I would be expected to make an endorsement … so I decided upon a test. I would tell each side that the other had offered me a Cabinet position but that I was still potentially interested in endorsing them and see how they would respond,” he said. “To be honest I expected both sides to offer me a Cabinet position in return for my endorsement, however I was pleasantly surprised when neither side did. I expected them both to care more about acquiring political power than disagreeing with backroom deals and dark politics.”

While politicking and wheeling and dealing are nothing new to Europeia, potentially shopping an endorsement in return for a Cabinet position would represent a turn from recent political form in the region. The evidence reviewed by the EBC indicates the possibility that Punchwood did actively, though implicitly, seek a Cabinet level post in return for his endorsement. However, no evidence emerged that an explicit quid pro quo offer was ever made.
 
I'd be interested to see the full logs since there seems to be wider context from what Izzy says.
I have two sets of screen shots. One unedited and one with my DM and server lists edited for privacy reasons. I would of course prefer to release the second set but I will release the unedited set if that's not satisfactory.
 
Personally, I was not so much upset about Punchwood soliciting a Cabinet post (it's discouraged, and his methods were not the most tactful, but as others noted, it's a gray area) as I was that he attempted to trick both tickets by saying the other had offered Cabinet posts. GraV and I were made to believe that Izzy/Prim offered him the post of Chief of Staff, whereas Izzy/Prim were made to believe that GraV and I had offered him a special Communications appointment. In my opinion, you can't justify that.

As I've already said, I'm grateful Prim said something in #eurochat, and I'm glad we were able to work together to bring this information to the EBC.
 
I've been out of the loop for a while, but this seems to be a violation of § 6a & 18 of the Criminal Code.

I however am not the AG, but it seems this is something that should be prosecuted, as I get the general feeling this is not what most Europeian's want from their elected officials and these acts show abandonment of ethics exclusively for personal gain which seems to violate the spirit and letter of the laws cited.

I also find the timing of the current Senate criminal code discussion interesting as it seems the language of the wording on §18 could be altered to fix this type of problem.
 
I also find the timing of the current Senate criminal code discussion interesting as it seems the language of the wording on §18 could be altered to fix this type of problem.
Ngl, I think this definitely breeches article 18 of the CC. It's an RP law, RP capital should be included as "monetary value" not just RL money.

The review of the CC is also largely due to this and other failings of it. This is not the first time in recent months where the CC has been found to be sorely lacking.
 
I've been out of the loop for a while, but this seems to be a violation of § 6a & 18 of the Criminal Code.

I however am not the AG, but it seems this is something that should be prosecuted, as I get the general feeling this is not what most Europeian's want from their elected officials and these acts show abandonment of ethics exclusively for personal gain which seems to violate the spirit and letter of the laws cited.

I also find the timing of the current Senate criminal code discussion interesting as it seems the language of the wording on §18 could be altered to fix this type of problem.
6a is
(6a) Anyone who attempts to force someone to provide favors of material or substantive value with a threat to release untrue information, is guilty of the offense Extortion under this law and liable to a punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding an eight (8) month ban.
Perhaps you are misreading the article but no one was "threatened with the release of untrue information" so 6a does not apply in the slightest.

Additionally, "monetary value" literally means monetary value ($, Euros ect.). The interpretation of it as some-kind of RP nebulous political capital is objectively wrong and the High Court would at no point hold that up.
 
Ngl, I think this definitely breeches article 18 of the CC. It's an RP law, RP capital should be included as "monetary value" not just RL money.

The review of the CC is also largely due to this and other failings of it. This is not the first time in recent months where the CC has been found to be sorely lacking.

I generally view all laws as living documents, they should always be reviewed when it is discovered they are somehow deficient.

I hope after the dust of nominations is settled we will see some progress on an investigation/trial so we can establish all sides fairly and not leave this unaddressed.
 
(6a) Anyone who attempts to force someone to provide favors of material or substantive value with a threat to release untrue information, is guilty of the offense Extortion under this law and liable to a punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding an eight (8) month ban.
Perhaps you are misreading the article but no one was "threatened with the release of untrue information" so 6a does not apply in the slightest.

Additionally, "monetary value" literally means monetary value ($, Euros ect.). The interpretation of it as some-kind of RP nebulous political capital is objectively wrong and the High Court would at no point hold that up.

I would argue that his seeking the endorsement by offering it as an advantage would be damaging to the other campaign, and even if it were not his intent certainly seemed to be to damage whichever candidate didn't capitulate.

I don't disagree with your interpretation of 18, and the courts haven't said alot about it really from what I remember and my few minutes reviewing the opinions/trials. I do however agree with Senator Kari in that the definition should be adjusted to concern rp capital as well as ooc. Which is why I said it seems, to be a violation, but I could find no case law and am far from certain.
 
Additionally, "monetary value" literally means monetary value ($, Euros ect.). The interpretation of it as some-kind of RP nebulous political capital is objectively wrong and the High Court would at no point hold that up.

The Criminal Code is an RP law, it should be interpreted as such. In such an interpretation "monetary value" can and does include political capital that would be of an RP value.
 
Additionally, "monetary value" literally means monetary value ($, Euros ect.). The interpretation of it as some-kind of RP nebulous political capital is objectively wrong and the High Court would at no point hold that up.

The Criminal Code is an RP law, it should be interpreted as such. In such an interpretation "monetary value" can and does include political capital that would be of an RP value.
You would basically need to ignore the entirety of the intent of the writers of the law and the meaning of the word monetary in order for this interpretation to be true:
Monetary: of or relating to money or to the mechanisms by which it is supplied to and circulates in the economy.
Meriam-Webster
RP political capital does not fit this definition in the slightest.
Drecq has stated that it was implemented in response to the addition of stamps to game-side activities. They are obviously purchased for real money and not RP capital.
Both the intent and the plain meaning are not in your favor, the position is in effect untenable from a legal standpoint. If you want the law to do what you are suggesting here, pass an amendment, instead of leaping though logical hoops to try to get the current wording to say something it clearly is not.
 
Additionally, "monetary value" literally means monetary value ($, Euros ect.). The interpretation of it as some-kind of RP nebulous political capital is objectively wrong and the High Court would at no point hold that up.

The Criminal Code is an RP law, it should be interpreted as such. In such an interpretation "monetary value" can and does include political capital that would be of an RP value.
This would make sense if we had RP money, but since we don't, it doesn't.
 
Additionally, "monetary value" literally means monetary value ($, Euros ect.). The interpretation of it as some-kind of RP nebulous political capital is objectively wrong and the High Court would at no point hold that up.

The Criminal Code is an RP law, it should be interpreted as such. In such an interpretation "monetary value" can and does include political capital that would be of an RP value.

I think if you take this idea to its logical extreme, it just doesn't make sense. For example, if I say "I will vote for you if you support Policy X," that is offering something of RP value (my vote) in exchange for a promise and presumed intent to take action (voting a certain way on a policy). But that's exactly what election campaigns are for. I as a citizen say "I think you, wanna-be-Senator, should support Policy X". You write a platform saying "I support Policy X" presumably with some recognition that there are voters out there who want you to do that thing.

A political party could offer an endorsement in exchange for a candidate to support certain policies. That's actually a big part of what a party would be EXPECTED to do.

So what Punchwood did is just a more extreme version of this. He offered an endorsement (which he presumably thought would carry some weight with his voters and so is functioning as a de facto political party) in exchange for a cabinet position, rather than for an agreement to vote a certain way. Is it "worse"? I suppose, because he's the direct beneficiary. But it's really no different.

I won't be supporting any effort to criminalize what is essentially just extremely aggressive and selfish political behavior, and agree with those who have said the public ridicule Punchwood is facing for lying is sufficient punishment.
 
Honestly I don't think it really matters at this point, if charges were going to be brought they already would have been. The CC is being reviewed and I would definitely like to see this language cleaned up in general so differences of interpretation of this magnitude are not even possible.

Maybe by retaining article (18) as is/nearly as is for RL money and a second analogous article covering RP stuff.
 
Day 10 of “Where’s Punchwood?” continues....
And the silence speaks volumes.

I miss the Discord conversations I had with Punch. This is bad, but I would reckon coming back, taking it and continuing to do his best at bettering whatever he does would look better than a perpetual absence.
 
Back
Top