'
This has gone on long enough now and needs to be concluded. I will do so by calling BS:
- on the consul's assertion that there has been already an explanation for the reasons given after archiving the proposals
- on the reasons stated after archiving themselves:a) how difficult can it be to point out in the proposal's text where it assumes\proposes that TWC has jurisdiction over off site matters
b) how difficult can it be to point out in the ToS where a similar text exists, eg where the matter is addressed in a way that the proposal does
- on the reasoning that the proposal was allowed to continue 'to facilitate discussion'. Either the proposal was invalid and subsequently was archived accordingly or it wasn't and could continue
- on the premise that the proposal was even officially declared invalid prior to the archiving:a)
this is the format defining an official declaration\instruction, nothing even remotely like it is present anywhere in the thread
b) if a simple comment by a consul is automatically a valid and official comment then the reason for invalidating is the rather ridiculous assertion "
The Curia is not part of TWC Staff and thus this amendment is invalid and not applicable." And considering that in the whole post there was a single reference to staff in the introduction (...commonly referred to as SND.) this doesn't even rise beyond 'totally inapplicable'. The consul in an apparent attempt at explanation then did make clear in the same post that ND obligations only applies to matter submitted
to the curia and
does not apply to curial officers themselves. Considering that the latter is the sole reason for the proposal (Ensuring non disclosure compliance in the curia) that puts an extra helping of BS on it.
The unwillingness of the consul to even respond to these challenges (repeating the argument is certainly not responding here) and the resulting 'no change whatsoever' demonstrates how easy it is for the consul to 'game' the system in his favor if he is so inclined. There simply is no appeal to his actions in a single case, even a VonC will not provide redress because it will not permit single incidents (and rightly so) to be considering sufficient to remove a consul. Which means the consul will get away with sucking reasons for his actions out of thin air as long as he does it selectively and not too often.
I probably should have added that set up to the BS list as well. Addressing that set up in the prescribed manner has been added to my to do list, it may just take some time - curtailing brazen displays of omnipotence\infallibility always does.
The election process for the next consul starts in just over 2 weeks - in this case technically the only, albeit circuitous and not guaranteed, way to eventually get redress. I certainly won't forget to vote.