[pp.int.general] Court of Arbitration ruling 2012-1-A: public call for evidence

[Thijs Markus]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:12:09 +0100, Maxime Rouquet
<maxime.rouquet at partipirate.org> wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 04:41 PM, Thijs Markus wrote:
>> Am I the only one who finds it hilarious, that on their very first case,
>> the CoA proves to be just as corrupt as the establishment we all oppose?
> 
> To all : please, point out evidence when you file corruption charges
> against PPI organs. Corruption is a fact, not a feeling.
> 
> Maybe you wanted to say "lack of professionalism" or "clumsiness".
> 
> (In that last case, I would agree with you, but please do not charge the
> whole PPI CoA for a small mistake of one single member : myself.)
> 

Lets see, a court appointed at a European GA, decides the next election of
the court should be held at a... European GA. Not to mention that the last
ruling was riddled with quasi-juridical jargon spelling out in so much
words: stay the fuck out of these proceedings. And only when this guise of
expertise was challenged, and people pointed out ignored evidence, did the
court find it in their heart to humbly reopen the case. Of course, even
after this reopening, the decision is already made. Or maybe not, but who
guards the guardians here? Right, no one.

>> Really... what is this CoA anyway? Some pitiful attempt to proclaim some
>> half-witted people experts, and having us all follow their judgements.
>> What
>> a way to supplant transparent debate with closed proceedings. These
>> people
>> should not exist, CoA should not exist. Lets get rid of this now, shall
>> we?
> 
> Rules of procedure are public, see here :
> http://int.piratenpartei.de/PPI_CoA/Rules_of_Procedure
> 
> Secrecy of debate gives us the option to discuss *every* possible issue
> to a claim without being disturbed.
> 
> In order to respect transparency, each ruling motivations are explained
> in the ruling (and can be challenged afterwards if needed).
> 

If you feel you need secrecy to speak out, you probably shouldn't. There is
only 1 excuse for secrecy; and that's when lives are at stake. If you
cannot speak your mind out of fear for this or that interpretation or
consequence, why don't you join the endlessly haggling hordes of regular
parties there already are for this purpose?

>> Really, how can an organisation that promotes freedom loving, future
>> loving
>> parties have a court like this? Court are over half a millennium old,
and
>> guess what? They never bite the hands that feeds them. (see the pirate
>> bay
>> trial, for a recent example.) Why on earth has someone figured it to be
a
>> good idea that such an organ should exist within PPI, and worse, why has
>> everyone else gone along with it? I just cant wrap my head around this
>> one.
>> Why does it even exist?
> 
> The "guilty" here is the PPI General Assembly.

In which you took part.

> 
>> If arbitration between parties is necessary, the last thing we need is a
>> court to decide who is wrong and who is right, what we need is a
>> negotiator
>> who finds the middle ground and turns the conflict into a deepening of
>> the
>> relationship.
> 
> That is included in the roles of the CoA, see :
> http://int.piratenpartei.de/PPI_CoA/Rules_of_Procedure
> 

Great the people who wield the sword of justice, also mediate the dispute.
Why not bring a third block of power into battle when 2 are already
fighting? Fucking... retards. Mediating is not about who can get the court
on their side. It's about finding common ground, and even though you agree
here, the side which fakes this the best will get the courts sympathies.
And whom will the higher power be once the mediation fails? Why, the
mediators of course. >.< My head full of ffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuu. 

>> And should at long last the parties not be able to agree, we
>> can always have a lottery from the PPI coordinators of the associated
PPI
>> members. This way, at least we avoid the possibility of 'friends in the
>> right places'. Given the level of expertise the present CoA can claim,
>> its
>> unreasonable to expect a drop in quality.
> 
> Your point about "friends in the right places" is not wrong, but your
> lottery system is not a solution.

Why not? Just that you fancy yourself having some authority at this time
and place, does not make arguments from authority suddenly valid.

> 
> May I remind you that the Court of Arbitration is elected by the PPI
> General Assembly ?
> 

May I remind you? European GA's elect European officers. And looking at the
proceedings, they would have have even agreed to the proposal: 'tomorrow we
will all eat feaces for dinner.' 'What are feaces?' 'Just vote yes'

> If there are things to change, it should be done in the election process
> and/or in the ease of participating and voting at the GA for all PPI
> members.
> 

Very well, the next GA there will be a proposal to abolish this court. I
was planning on doing as much anyway. But, true to the politics you favour,
you already implied I was planning differently. This statement would have
been utterly redundant if you did not feel the need to imply I was not
going through the appropriate channels like some barbarian at the gates.
How repugnant is the game you play, I see why you feel the need for
secrecy.

>> This is not even mentioning the court decision is apparently made by 4
>> out
>> of its, I belief 9 members.
> 
> (4 out of 7 members.)
> 

My mistake.

>> Aside from making the decision anyhow invalid,
>> this also points out that this organ is not flexible enough to have a
>> place
>> in a constantly evolving, expanding and shrinking movement. We cannot
>> assign people for years who will not be around for years.
> 
> CoA members are elected at every GA, so once a year. Just like the board
> and the rest of the PPI officers.

This board looks like it ends up with some 4 members finishing the ride,
the last board with 2 or 3 I belief. We need month-to-month, day-to-day
flexibility, not year-to-year. It's not working, on no level of PPI, court
included, this way of doing things. And before you start again, I will make
some proposals in this direction for the next GA as well.

>> Long story short: Courts create inflexible key positions, key positions
>> attract the corruptible, lets not have these unnecessary key positions.
>> Everyone with me on this?
> 
> I believe you could simply not vote for corrupted people. (And stop
> charging people for corruption without evidence.)

Yes, evidence is rather hard to come by with closed proceedings. Which is
usually the real reason for closed proceedings, not some bullshit about
being free to speak your mind. You already have that freedom, if you're too
pussy to use it, you shouldn't. We can look at the chain events however,
and conclude with a high likelihood that it is corrupt. European GA ->
assigns European CoA -> CoA decided for a new European GA, disregarding
contrary evidence & statements -> European GA, rinse and repeat. Given the
chain of self-inforcing causality here, behind a layer of secrecy, it is up
to you to proof you're not corrupt here.