Rand Emerges Victorious in Senate Recall Referendum, Kari Disputes Referendum Administration






Rand Emerges Victorious in Senate Recall Referendum, Kari Disputes Referendum Administration
Written by Deepest House



(Europeia - July 29, 2019) – Senator Rand emerged from the recall referendum initiated by political rival Kari with his seat intact. Nearly 63 percent of respondents voted to keep the senator in his seat, with 37 percent voting for removal. Kari, a citizen without office in the region, initiated the referendum process by starting a petition on Wednesday, July 24. Senator Rand had been absent from the region’s senior legislative chamber for nine days without posting a formal leave of absence.

“I am normally fairly lenient on this sort of thing (after all, it happened to me too as my time as [first minister] wore on), but the longer we go without a response other than ‘I was busy,’ the higher the bar would be for me to vote to retain him in his office,” said former First Minister Lloenflys during the mandated 72-hour debate period triggered when the petition reached the required number of signatures. Others, such as Sopo and Aexnidaral Seymour, joined Lloenflys in wanting to hear from the senator directly.

“I apologize for my absence this last week,” Rand said in a statement explaining his absence. “I know things in the Senate were counting on me to move forward. I know I made a commitment to serve on the Senate this term. This last week, I let everyone down. I am sorry.”

In fully acknowledging his absence and disregard for his duties as a senator, Rand explained that his unannounced leave of absence was due to real life work pressures, summer travel, and lack of emotional strength to publicly confront his absence.

Kari was unimpressed by the senator’s explanation, and continued her attack on his senate seat in response to his statement. “Your explanation is not satisfactory in the slightest,” she said. “The only factor in your statement that stands up to scrutiny is being exhausted after a 70 hour work week; which also would not have prevented you from taking the 20 seconds required to post a LoA … . This all reeks of entitlement.”

While others were questioning Rand and his absence, HEM questioned if people were being inconsistent in their treatment of Rand compared to how they would treat others in the same position. “I can’t help but wonder if some are being less forgiving because it’s Rand than they would’ve been if it were say, Sopo,” he remarked. HEM’s sentiment was not unique to himself.

“I cannot help but see this referendum as a petty, gleeful attack on a political rival, rather than the thoughtful act of a worried citizen,” said one senior Europeian politician who has occupied the highest offices in the region, requesting anonymity to speak freely about the subject. “There is cause to call for the referendum, but the manner in which it was done makes the true goal obvious.”

After Senator Rand’s statement and as the debate period progressed, multiple citizens evaluated the situation and announced that while Rand’s unannounced leave of absence was troubling, they would not support the referendum.

“Rand has been an active and avid participant as a Senator for pretty much his entire tenure until this unexpected unannounced LoA,” Lloenflys said, after evaluating the merits of Rand’s statement. “I often disagree with his positions and occasionally disagree with his tactics, but he has demonstrated that he has much to contribute to the region. … When this referendum comes to a vote, I intend to vote against removal.”

Both Sopo and Kuramia, as well as Deepest House, concurred with the former first minister’s statement, and pledged their support for Rand in the referendum vote.

With voting underway and the outcome of the referendum becoming clear, Kari took a new approach and launched an attack on this author, Deepest House, the referendum administrator, perhaps in an attempt to invalidate its result or simply to attack someone she views as an adversary.

“Given that the Vice Chancellor that held this poll is known to be ‘ignored’ &/or ‘blocked’ by citizens of the region, which by extension means that they can not access this thread unless directly linked to it: I would like to request that in the future the Vice Chancellor in question is not employed to conduct elections or referenda … .”

Kari’s attack on the referendum administration received swift, decisive, and near universal condemnation from the Europeian public.

“Frankly, if you choose to block DH, that is not DH restricting a citizen’s voting right. That is a citizen restricting their own right, and that is not the fault of DH,” said United Vietussia shortly after Kari’s grievance. “This is frankly a non-issue, and I don’t know why it’s being raised.” Other citizens such as Astrellan, UnitedPeoplesof Centrism, and DictatorAnna10 strongly echoed these sentiments.

Others joined in reproaching the complaint. Vice Chancellor Drecq argued that Kari’s complaint amounts to a request for Deepest House to be removed from his post as vice chancellor.

“We in the Chancellery do not have control over who blocks us. DH took no action that in any way, shape, or form restricted Citizens from viewing, accessing, or voting in this thread. He has no control over what Citizens do themselves do to restrict their ability to do so,” he said. “He should certainly not be removed from his post, and removing his ability to administer elections and referenda would essentially mean he could no longer do the job of Vice Chancellor, for the actions of others that he has no control over.”

Izzy was shocked at Kari’s claim that there are others in the region blocking the vice chancellor. “There are people other than you blocking DH?” he asked. Kari’s claim that multiple citizens have blocked Deepest House remains unsubstantiated.

Minister of Radio Carathetopia was in the midst of an EBC Radio program covering the referendum when news broke that Kari had registered a complaint regarding the referendum administration. “The vote right now is 14 to 25 in favor of not removing Senator Rand. So if I’m even allowed to say this, one can speculate … I would speculate that the vote is in favor of not removing Senator Rand, and [Kari] is doing whatever means necessary to have something wrong with the vote so we can vote again. It’s kind of like someone saying to recount. … I hope Kari doesn’t eat me alive, that would be bad.”

As the fervent disagreement with Kari’s ploy to undermine the legitimacy of the referendum mounted, Supreme Chancellor Lethen did step in to encourage people not to pile on Kari for the controversial behavior. “Can we please not turn this into a ‘let’s [expletive] on Kari’ fest?” the Supreme Chancellor asked. “While I don’t agree with the way she raised her concerns, I do think she raises a very good point that raises some questions to me.” He then asked some questions that furthered debate.

Kuramia also encouraged people to limit the debate to Kari’s actions and not her character. Even with these pleas, the public found Kari’s behavior fair game for criticism.

“I can not think of another player in this region has been nearly as prominent as Kari, who consistently instigates conflict based on downright absurd and absolutely bonkers opinions, and at no point afterward ever admits that their opinion was way off base,” said Speaker of the Senate GraVandius in harsh rebuttal to Kari’s gambit to undermine the referendum process. “It is a pattern that is fairly consistent and thus, a healthy bit of ridicule is fine in my book.”

Ultimately, both Kari’s effort to unseat Rand and her ploy to undermine the administration of the referendum by calling attention to her own blocking of the referendum administrator failed. As the referendum vote was underway, Rand expressed thanks for the words of encouragement and hope for a positive referendum result for him.

“Thank you, everyone, for your understanding and words of encouragement,” he said. “I’m looking forward to (hopefully) continuing this term.”


Edit @ 4:50 to correct formatting error
 
Last edited:
With voting underway and the outcome of the referendum becoming clear, Kari took a new approach and [/url='https://forums.europeians.com/index.php?threads/referendum-vote-removal-of-senator-rand.10047664/post-10187474']launched[/url] an attack on this author, Deepest House, the referendum administrator, perhaps in an attempt to invalidate its result or simply to attack someone she views as an adversary.
I think you need to edit this so the url tag in the beginning isn't with the forward slash.

OTHER THAN THAT
This is a fine article, DH. Very in-depth and also broad, covering both the onset, middling, and departure of the whole affair.
 
While I agree that Kari doesn't really have a leg to stand on in terms of her argument, is it really appropriate for the target of her concerns (Deepest House) to be able to frame the story via EBC News? I don't think authors should be able to pose as neutral journalists when they're the chief subject of a story. An opinion piece would be fine--but this seems wholly inappropriate.
 
While I agree that Kari doesn't really have a leg to stand on in terms of her argument, is it really appropriate for the target of her concerns (Deepest House) to be able to frame the story via EBC News? I don't think authors should be able to pose as neutral journalists when they're the chief subject of a story. An opinion piece would be fine--but this seems wholly inappropriate.
If we forbid every target of her concerns from authoring articles in the EBC, one day we'd end up with no writers. This catering to Kari, who is by far the most outlandishly aggressive and hostile individual in our entire community, really needs to stop.
 
While I agree that Kari doesn't really have a leg to stand on in terms of her argument, is it really appropriate for the target of her concerns (Deepest House) to be able to frame the story via EBC News? I don't think authors should be able to pose as neutral journalists when they're the chief subject of a story. An opinion piece would be fine--but this seems wholly inappropriate.
This is something I will consider in the future. I'll take responsibility for my potential oversight on this.
 
If we forbid every target of her concerns from authoring articles in the EBC, one day we'd end up with no writers. This catering to Kari, who is by far the most outlandishly aggressive and hostile individual in our entire community, really needs to stop.
I don't think it's catering to Kari. I think it's trying to make sure a government doesn't gang up on its citizens. Sopo is right, the EBC is supposed to be a neutral organization that covers news. We have opinion pieces that may have personal color to them; but outside of those, it really should be our job to be neutral on these matters.
 
@Sopo

I can certainly understand and respect that opinion, however I took extra care to ensure that everything in the story was based on things that occurred, or were based in the context of others’ direct quotes. There are direct links to the quotes so everyone can fully evaluate the actions for themselves.

I stand by my journalism as solid, based on fact, and imbued with the integrity with which a good journalist should approach all of his or her stories.

ETA: Bottom line, this is a balanced and neutral story. In the story, I even disclosed that I was the subject of her complaint, to ensure full transparency to the audience.
 
While I agree that Kari doesn't really have a leg to stand on in terms of her argument, is it really appropriate for the target of her concerns (Deepest House) to be able to frame the story via EBC News? I don't think authors should be able to pose as neutral journalists when they're the chief subject of a story. An opinion piece would be fine--but this seems wholly inappropriate.
I think it's a little odd at parts to refer to ones self but overall it's a straightforward and factual article that is like 80% just others quotes. It's great turnaround on an article too.
 
It is always awkward to refer to yourself, but it isn’t unheard of in journalism.

And as I mentioned before, I went out of my way to ensure that I identified myself as both the author of the piece and recipient of the complaint to ensure transparency. There’s nothing more I can do than that. Had I not identified myself as the recipient of the complaint, while I still think the article would’ve been fine because it is factual, it would’ve been less than transparent.
 
It is always awkward to refer to yourself, but it isn’t unheard of in journalism.

And as I mentioned before, I went out of my way to ensure that I identified myself as both the author of the piece and recipient of the complaint to ensure transparency. There’s nothing more I can do than that. Had I not identified myself as the recipient of the complaint, while I still think the article would’ve been fine because it is factual, it would’ve been less than transparent.
I defend DH in this. Transparency in identifying sources, especially oneself as author, is incredibly important in establishing an understanding of perspective. It is DH admitting that he is involved in some measure with the events occurring. Others may take that information and incorporate it into their perception of the article at hand. A grain of salt, if you will. However, as he mentioned before, the use of links to the respective sources also gives readers context -- and, importantly, primary sources. This, I think balances the article.
 
While I agree that Kari doesn't really have a leg to stand on in terms of her argument, is it really appropriate for the target of her concerns (Deepest House) to be able to frame the story via EBC News? I don't think authors should be able to pose as neutral journalists when they're the chief subject of a story. An opinion piece would be fine--but this seems wholly inappropriate.
If we forbid every target of her concerns from authoring articles in the EBC, one day we'd end up with no writers. This catering to Kari, who is by far the most outlandishly aggressive and hostile individual in our entire community, really needs to stop.
I'm not "catering to Kari." I'm not saying that anyone who's every had a run-in with her should be prevented from writing about her; I'm saying that someone who is one of the major focuses of the story should not be writing the story. I don't think you would accept this if you were in Kari's position, or even if someone else more likable was. I'm not standing up for Kari in particular, I'm standing up for journalistic ethics.
@Sopo

I can certainly understand and respect that opinion, however I took extra care to ensure that everything in the story was based on things that occurred, or were based in the context of others’ direct quotes. There are direct links to the quotes so everyone can fully evaluate the actions for themselves.

I stand by my journalism as solid, based on fact, and imbued with the integrity with which a good journalist should approach all of his or her stories.

ETA: Bottom line, this is a balanced and neutral story. In the story, I even disclosed that I was the subject of her complaint, to ensure full transparency to the audience.
As always, it was a thorough and well-written piece. I wouldn't expect anything less from you. I just think it's inherently tainted by the name in the by-line, which clearly calls into question the objectivity of the piece.
 
Thanks, Sopo.

I can understand that point of view. That’s precisely why I wrote this story without any bias and based on fact: what was done and what was said. I knew this piece would undergo extra scrutiny given who was involved, so I had to be extra careful to write it as an objective reporter, and not include my own feelings within the piece. I believe I was successful.

The same thing happened a few months ago when I covered Kura’s intention to run for president. Again, in that case, I wrote a piece that was objective and without bias, despite being accused of being unable to write an unbiased piece.
 
For the record, I had the same reaction as Sopo at seeing the author. The sloth's point is very valid
 
I mean, I think the issue isn’t in the bias of the article which I think was (as usual) very balanced and professional. The trickier question is impartially determining newsworthiness when you are a subject of an event that could be covered. A big part of journalism is deciding what stories and worth covering in a busy world with seemingly infinite possible stories. Even in our tiny Nationstates ecosystem, there are dozens of comments from dozens of threads every day you could chose to right about and elevate to deeper, more critical public discourse.

While I think Deepest House was able to step back and write an objective article, I think it’s impossible to step back and determine the newsworthiness of something when it involves you. We inherently, as self-centered creatures, think ourselves are important. I’m not sure how you back away from that and determine a post by Kari directed at you in a thread is worth covering and not x, y, or z.
 
I think the post by Kari was worth covering, personally speaking. It was a post by the starter of a petition for a referendum in that referendum about the administrator of said referendum arguing that the very fact that they were the administrator in some form invalidated the referendum. That by itself is newsworthy. That the reason given for the invalidation is particularly stupid and self-serving but somehow still started a debate whether its a valid point only adds to it.

And yes, it is stupid. A unilateral action anyone can take and reverse themselves at any time invalidating referenda and elections and being used as an argument to essentially disempower the election and referenda admins is stupid. If we allowed it to stand the next troll that came along would block DH, Lethen, and me and everyone else in the Elections Act and suddenly we cant hold elections anymore. Every single citizen would get a veto over who gets to be a working member of the Chancellery. We have constitutional norms for that. 4/5ths supermajority in a referendum for an SC to be removed. A decision by SC or 4/5ths majority by Senate for a VC to be removed. Nowhere in there does it say "And also Vice Chancellors may be removed from Office if Kari does not like them."
 
HEM, thanks for recognizing the absence of bias in the article and that it was written fairly and professionally.

Regarding newsworthiness, the second half of the EBC Radio program last night covered this issue. I was not involved in that radio program at all. The comment also elicited significant public comment and discourse.

So yes, while I agree that identifying newsworthiness of something involving yourself can be tricky, in this case, the incident had already been covered by a partner EBC news outlet and also generated substantial public discussion.

While all of this has been a useful exercise, I hope we can now return to discussing the content and events rather than who wrote the article, which I don’t believe matters at all.
 
HEM, thanks for recognizing the absence of bias in the article and that it was written fairly and professionally.

Regarding newsworthiness, the second half of the EBC Radio program last night covered this issue. I was not involved in that radio program at all. The comment also elicited significant public comment and discourse.

So yes, while I agree that identifying newsworthiness of something involving yourself can be tricky, in this case, the incident had already been covered by a partner EBC news outlet and also generated substantial public discussion.

While all of this has been a useful exercise, I hope we can now return to discussing the content and events rather than who wrote the article, which I don’t believe matters at all.
There is a long history in Europeia of the author of articles wishing to direct people's particular reactions to their article. There's also a long history of them failing at this :p
 
DH wrote an article and did so fully within the rules of the EBC. Criticism of the circumstances should be redirected at me. The current discussion - about what our common EBC should look like - is valuable to the region and I'll take it with me into the next Cabinet briefing.

What I do want to highlight beyond this discussion: This is a very timely and thorough article. Excellently written. Thanks, DH!
 
Back
Top