Mike Friedman wrote:
Let's just forget the personalities involved. Forget about the members of the cabinet.
The existing CiC resigned the position. If he was allowed to just take up the role again because he changed his mind, what prevents the previous CiC from doing the same thing? Or what about the CiC before that? Could the first ever Allied CiC just change his mind and say he wants the old job back?
Now, I know that is highly unlikely to happen, but given the current rules, seeking the approval of the cabinet seemed the most logical thing to me.
Are you serious? So it's back to semantics again (the "Choose a word so my position is justified" Brigade).
I don't care how anyone feels personally about him or his style or if you felt he was mean to Mark about the chief of staff position. If you didn't want him as CiC, you vote him out in the election.
You can't vote to not reinstate someone unless you first fire them, because Marco is plainly stating he did not resign. Mark, Al and Andy owe the members an explanation, since there is nothing even remotely close to allowing this in the rules. From what I can see, Mark fired Marco, and then tried to cloak it in some semblance of legitimacy.
Why, because he decided not to participate in the cabinet discussions any longer? So where does it state that he has to do that? Is the rule so clear and sacrosanct that it must never be violated? Seriously?
Let's be clear, Marco was forced out because people just couldn't wait for an actual election to happen. It's wrong. It's petty and it makes the whole process look more and more like a sham.
It's a wargame club for goodness sakes, and yet here we are watching power politics in action.