United Together for Self-Respect

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I will run as positive of a campaign as the truth allows me to run, but we do ourselves a grave disservice when we ignore uncomfortable truths in favor of a smiling facade.

Bart Simpson said it best. Over the past week, we have seen Baron Davinescu paint a fairly sunny picture of the debate between the two of us currently scheduled for this Saturday. But in this case, the "uncomfortable truth" is a much less rosy thing.

The Baron's own proposed rules regarding the debate seem fair enough, right? Each party was to put forth five questions for the other party's candidate to answer. The moderators -- King Txec and Sir Ian Platschich, fair men both -- were to vet the questions for fairness.

The questions submitted by the Baron went through the agreed-upon procedure pretty easily. His Majesty had a few that he wasn't sure of wording on; there were even a few questions that I could tell weren't quite factually accurate, but I figured I could correct the record as part of my answer. As a result, acceptable submissions were arrived at smoothly. I want to make clear that the issues surrounding the debate preparations have nothing to do with either His Majesty or Sir Ian.

The questions submitted by the URL were not subject to the agreed procedure. Of the five submitted, four quickly received negative feedback. That feedback was not from the King, and not from Sir Ian -- it was all from the Baron.* This presents a few big problems:

• Debate participants getting to edit the questions they themselves will answer turns the debate into a farce. Much like gerrymandering makes a mockery of democracy by allowing politicians to pick their voters instead of the other way around, the Baron being able to editorialize his questions into something more politically advantageous does a disservice to people who look to the debate for honest, accurate information.
  
  
• It taints the perceptions of the moderators. The idea was that the moderators would vet the questions on their own. Meddling in that process steers their reading of the questions in the direction the Baron wants it to go in. Would they have arrived at the same feedback themselves, without the undue influence? It's certainly possible, and I would happily deal with it were that the case, but now we won't know what their uninfluenced thoughts would have been, because the Baron's compulsion to get the first word prevented them from having their say.
  
  
• Most importantly: it fundamentally ignores the agreed terms. Based on his most recent comments to me, he does not seem to understand this, thinking instead that I am upset about the content of his criticism, rather than the fact that providing it at all was not part of our terms. He does not seem to understand why someone would have an issue with the entire overarching agreement being disrespected. The Baron was unable to set aside his own tendencies to spin and micromanage and nitpick long enough to let two other people read a list of questions. He was unable to set aside his own tendencies in order to live up to an agreement that was his own idea. Does he view his own proposals, his own word, his own honor and reputation as being worth so little? Is he simply unable to control his manipulative compulsions? Does the Baron simply not respect his own agreements because he does not respect the people he enters into them with? How can anyone know what to expect when they work with someone like that?

When I raised the issue earlier this week that the agreement was being blatantly ignored by the Baron in favor of trying to "work the refs", you'll note his immediate response was to misrepresent what I said as a criticism of the fairness of the moderators, followed by a "nah, everything's fine!" attitude. As I've already said, His Majesty and Sir Ian are absolutely not to blame here. And as I've pointed out, false positivity does us no good as a country.

The URL's most recent campaign mailer described me as "[a] man who can – calmly – stand up and say NO. No to the Talossa of dirty politics, no to the politics of harassment." This is one of those times where standing up for yourself becomes necessary, because frankly, I don't appreciate being rugpulled. When I enter into an agreement, I expect that I'm not going to be the only one abiding by it, or the only one even trying to. I'm not mad, I'm just really disappointed that he thinks this kind of behavior isn't a problem.

There's more to come from the URL regarding our positive program for the country. There's more to go over about our plans to continue our nation's optimistic track and plan for sustainable growth. But I can't just stand here and take it. I respect myself, I respect my fellow Free Reformists, and I respect the voters too much to allow us to simply be jerked around by the leader of the PA. The big remaining questions, of course, are: how do you make a situation like this fair again? Can you just magically start following your own proposed terms partway through and expect it to work out? Where do we go from here?

In the interest of problem-solving, I have an idea for a solution: make this a "town hall" style affair. We can keep the time, the location (though a shift to Discord may allow people to watch live? Just a thought), the main difference is that the questions will be crowdsourced through @King Txec , if he's willing. They can be directed to myself, to the Baron, or to both of us to answer in random order. The format switch may render the rebuttal period unnecessary, but I'm open to thoughts there.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

My friend, the whole point of a shared Google Doc, used by all four of us, was so that we could all comment on the questions together.  Otherwise we would have just sent them to the moderators.

But if you had wanted a rule for the debate where we had to remain silent about each other's questions, then you definitely could have asked for that.  It would be unusual, but okay.

You just suddenly seemed to have a problem with the process when your questions came under fire.  And I mean... come on, you're demanding that the moderators ask outrageous things:

Can the PA confirm that, if they lead the next Government, they will lead a fishing expedition through all the available immigration records of the last two years, seeking for improperly processed or not-processed immigration applications? Given the immigration boom we've seen this term, why is he calling for a level of scrutiny that has NEVER been applied to the performance of any past Cabinet Minister?

It's not a surprise that they're asking you to rephrase.

No, I wouldn't like to switch to a debate form where you can submit the questions rejected by the moderators.  I'd like you to please come up with three more questions that aren't just campaign statements, and that a neutral moderator could ask with a straight face.  Sir Ian has already suggested some rephrasing you could use.

Sir Ian and His Majesty are both completely reasonable and not liable to be swayed just because I object to a question.  And prior to their current positions, they were both also close political allies of the Most Honourable Miestra Schiva.  So if they agree that there are problems with some of your questions, it's possible that they're right.

Let's finish up some questions that you can get the moderators to agree to, and let's debate as agreed.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Can the PA confirm that, if they lead the next Government, they will lead a fishing expedition through all the available immigration records of the last two years, seeking for improperly processed or not-processed immigration applications?

That's exactly what you promised to do.

Past abuses must be sought out, investigated, and brought to light.  We believe the Government when they say that they've never used the secret power that they want to keep.  But it's possible that other governments have not been responsible in this regard.  The Progressive Alliance will investigate any past abuses and bring them to light.  The people have a right to know whether a bureaucrat has been secretly controlling immigration.

As you know, we offered to rephrase the word "fishing expedition" as too provocative, but this is what you have promised to do. And as I say, if you try it, I'm gone.

See, this is why I think that Baron Davinescu, although he clearly knows right from wrong and what dishonesty is, has a blind spot towards his own behaviour when he gets into "political animal" mode.

If he thinks something is a problem, even if it's something he made up - eg. "the Immigration Minister is throwing applications into the trash" - it's a five alarm fire that requires a full investigation and a new Government.

If someone else thinks something is a problem, and he doesn't, he pretends it's not real and the victim is being irrational. (Ironic, considering how he rightly identifies that as scandalous behaviour in other people.)

I have reason to believe that the moderators for this debate - former political allies or no - agree with Mic'haglh - that they thought they would be vetting the questions, that they did not expect the debate opponents to be trying to set the agenda themselves. If you want any post-election cooperation, it would be wise not to follow the Sex Pest's example, but to acknowledge that your behaviour is upsetting others and play fair.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

As you know, we offered to rephrase the word "fishing expedition" as too provocative

Actually, Mic'halgh has declined to rephrase.  But you're right: the problem is that the phrasing is way too provocative.  And I'm glad you agree.  That's my concern, too.

The basic approach is fine, since believe me when I say that I'm more than happy to talk about The Public Process Act and the need for transparency.  The problem is exactly what you say: the phrasing is absurdly provocative.

There is nearly unanimous agreement on that fact, it seems!  So please: let's rephrase this question.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

So you have no objection to the question if we replace the words "lead a fishing expedition" with "go through"?