Editor’s Note: The content in this article is purely roleplay related and not depicting reporting of any real-world crime.
What began as a simple announcement by DCT Secretary xEndeavour has spiraled into a full-blown political disaster for the current Kaiserin administration and the nation. The secretary’s introduction of a “fairness fee” has triggered congressional hearing, multiple contempt of Congress motions, and calls for resignation, plunging Redmont into political turmoil as Congress and the Executive clashed over the fee’s legality. Due to mounting public pressure, the “fairness fee” was rescinded at the request of the President Kaiserin.
The Announcement That Started It All
On August 2nd at 7:54 AM EST, xEndeavour posted that the DCT would be making changes to the existing plot auction policy, mainly introducing a “fairness fee” to all DCT plot auctions—town, federal, or otherwise. As stated in the announcement, “A fairness fee will apply to all plot auctions so there is no more guess work if you have to pay an auction levy. It is a standard fee applied to all plot auctions, based on how many plots you already own (inclusive of all plots, less wild regions).”
The fee was designed to replace confusion around existing levy requirements with a standardized system, though it would scale based on property ownership. The announcement took almost everyone in government and server by surprise, as xEndeavour had not held public consultation in advance.
Initial Reactions and Growing Concerns
As the day went on, questions quickly emerged about the exact wording and implementation of the fairness fee, particularly how it would interact with the existing plot levy. The announcement’s legality was immediately called into question, with the issue of whether the DCT had the power to impose such a fee, and if so, whether it could be applied to town auctions.
By 10:15 AM, a petition to completely eliminate the plot levy was started by pricelessagrari. Although not directly referring to the fairness fee, the petition resulted in general talks of eliminating fees and xEndeavour’s actions.
The first official government response came at 1:43 PM when Congressional Representative Plura72 released a press statement condemning the fee as a “direct violation of the Property Regulations Act.” Plura demanded that Congress hold a hearing on xEndeavour’s actions, initiating a long process of legal action and congressional action against the Fairness Fee.
Mounting Opposition
Between 2:47 PM and 11:40 PM on August 2nd, there was a cascade of official responses. More representatives, the Deputy President of the Senate, and the mayors of Oakridge and Aventura all joined the chorus calling for action against the Fairness Fee. Rep. RealImza, Councillor and Head of Admin for Aventura, urged citizens to “call your Congresspeople and ask them to hold the Secretary accountable for this, because if not, towns are in danger.”
This period marked the beginning of a deeply contentious debate over the DCT’s rights and power regarding town auctions, which would become one of the central issues in the controversy. Meanwhile, the first eviction auction with the fairness fee began on plot C343, with little focus from buyers on the fee itself.
The Secretary’s Defense
On August 3rd at 6:57 AM, xEndeavour made his first official reply to the mounting criticism. In a lengthy explanatory post, the Secretary tried to explain what he referred to as “misconceptions” regarding the fee and rationalize the DCT’s right to impose it. He asserted that “the DCT has the power to charge for its services, no different to the DOH charges you for medication, or the DOI charges you to adopt an animal,” laying down what would be a fundamental principle of his legal argument.
The Secretary countered that the fee would regularize payments for all auctions to eliminate confusion as to when levies are collectible, and noted revenue would be used for expanded town grant programs for capital improvements. He further indicated towns could conduct their own eviction auctions and thereby avoid DCT fees if they wished to do so. Notably, xEndeavour acknowledged that “most of the loud opposers are people who own a significant amount of plots,” which suggests the fee’s progressive structure was intentional.
Despite this clarification, skepticism and critique persisted throughout the morning of August 3rd. While auctions continued with the fee in place, the controversy showed no signs of abating.
The Tax vs. Fee Debate
At the root of the controversy is a fundamental disagreement over whether the “fairness fee” is a tax or a fee—a distinction that makes a significant legal difference. If it’s a tax, only Congress can levy it; but if it’s a fee, the Secretary of the DCT may have the authority to impose it.
Critics argue that the measure bears hallmarks of taxation rather than a service fee. The fee scales progressively based on existing property ownership rather than reflecting the cost of auction services provided. Those paying higher amounts receive identical services to those paying less, suggesting that the charge functions as a wealth-based levy rather than compensation for government services. Additionally, xEndeavour’s statement that revenue would fund town grant programs, rather than offset DCT operational costs, mirrors how tax revenue supports general government initiatives.
Supporters, such as the Secretary, argue that it’s a valid departmental charge, likening it to DOH fees for drugs or DOI adoption charges. They argue the DCT has inherent authority to charge for its services and that the fee standardizes a confusing system of levies. The ongoing legal ambiguity stems from the lack of clear statutory definitions distinguishing taxes from fees in Redmont law, leaving both interpretations arguably valid under current regulations.
This definitional dispute forms the core of the legal challenges facing the fairness fee, with courts likely needed to resolve whether the measure represents an innovative fee structure or an unconstitutional tax.
The Plot Regulations Act and Subversion of Democratic Governance
Unknown to many at the time, the fairness fee controversy took on an even more troubling turn when viewed in light of the recently passed Plot Regulations Act. The Act, signed into law in May 2025, barely months before the August crisis, had already established a comprehensive auction levy system strikingly similar to what xEndeavour attempted to introduce unilaterally.
The Plot Regulations Act created a progressive tax on eviction auctions based on plot ownership: 0% for those owning 0-9 plots, 25% for 10-14 plots, 50% for 15-20 plots, and 75% for those owning more than 20. Most importantly, Congress specifically exempted “town plots, wild plots, and residential plots” from both the levy itself and the calculations—a conscious decision to maintain local control and restrict federal overreach.
What makes xEndeavour’s actions particularly egregious is evidence suggesting he was already violating the Plot Regulations Act right as he announced his departmental fee. His own clarification graphics stated that someone owning “fourteen city or town plots” would pay “25% plot fairness fee” consisting of “the legislated plot levy and no department fee.” This directly contradicts the law’s explicit exemption of town plots from levy calculations, indicating he was illegally including exempt plots when applying the Congressional levy.
Furthermore, in July 2025, just one month before implementing the fairness fee, xEndeavour had authored draft legislation that would have rescinded and replaced the Plot Regulations Act while removing the exemption for residential plots but keeping the town plot exemption. When this bill never made it to the floor, he proceeded to implement his fairness fee anyway through departmental policy—but this time including both residential AND town plots, going even further than his own proposed legislation.
This sequence of events transforms what might have been seen as bureaucratic overreach into a deliberate circumvention of democratic governance. The Secretary knew Congressional approval was required—his own legislative attempt proved this. When denied through proper channels, he chose to achieve an even more expansive result through unilateral departmental action, directly contradicting both Congressional intent and constitutional principles.
The Plot Regulations Act’s existence invalidates each point of xEndeavour’s defense. Congress had already addressed auction pricing concerns through legislation, explicitly labeling their charge as a ‘tax’ and implementing it through proper legislative channels. The DCT’s role was to implement Congressional policy, not create competing systems that expanded federal authority into areas Congress had deliberately excluded. This context reveals the fairness fee not as an innovative solution to a problem, but as an unconstitutional attempt to override Congressional will when democratic processes didn’t yield the desired outcome.
The situation deteriorated further at 5:30 PM when RealImza posted that Aventura had enacted the No More DCT Evictions Act, stripping the DCT of its authority to process evictions within the town. Although the move made use of an option that xEndeavour had conceded that towns did have, RealImza’s post made it explicitly clear that it was in direct retaliation for the Secretary’s actions: “This came after Secretary Endeavour tried to screw up our great town of Aventura once again, with our trust and confidence in the Secretary gone, we decided to grant this power to the town of Aventura directly in order to safeguard our autonomy.”
Congressional Investigation
On the morning of the 4th of August, House Speaker Omegabiebel opened the House Investigation Plura had demanded two days previously. Meant to examine the character and legality of the fairness fee, the hearing soon became a contentious battle between Congress and the Secretary.
xEndeavour quickly embarked on an explanation of the workings of the fee and its legality, reprising his departmental fee defense from his August 3rd statement. The Secretary was cautioned by Representative ToadKing to only answer when asked, and continued to ask him about the discussions and considerations that resulted in bringing in the fairness fee.
The hearing went downhill quickly as xEndeavour brazenly flouted congressional authority. After being told to speak only when questioned, he stated, “If I wish to make representations to the hearing I will, whether or not I’m asked,” in open challenge to the authority of the House. In spite of Representative ToadKing’s explicit instruction that “You will not speak unless spoken to,” the Secretary persisted in making unsolicited remarks.
The Secretary’s defiance escalated when he repeatedly attempted to control document production after being told multiple times that “the handling of the subpoena is outside your purview.” When directed on how to answer questions, he responded with blatant disrespect: “Sorry don’t really care for how you think I should answer your question. I’ll answer it how I see fit.”
Contempt Charges and Growing Removal Demands
At 12:04 PM, Speaker Omegabiebel found Secretary xEndeavour in Contempt of Congress for his “abhorrent behaviour” at the oversight hearing, issuing him 40 penalty points ($4,000) under Part III Section 6 of the Criminal Code Act. The indictment referenced his explicit challenges to House authority, persistent unsolicited remarks, efforts to dictate the subpoena process, and sheer disregard for the hearing procedures.
It escalated further just a day later when Omegabiebel held xEndeavour in Contempt of Congress for the second time at 12:25 PM. This was due to the Secretary posting off-topic gifs in the hearing thread, which was disruptive. Despite four warnings about this, including one from Representative RealImza, xEndeavour persisted in what was viewed as disrespectful conduct by Congress, earning another 40 penalty point fine.
By 12:39 PM, the petition to remove xEndeavour as DCT Secretary had attained the required 30 votes. Speaker Omegabiebel officially informed Representatives and Senators of the petition under section 5 of the Referendum Act, in addition to notifying the President. After early doubts on the eligibility of the vote tally, ToadKing validated all 30 votes as eligible, with Omegabiebel adding a stern “never doubt me again” to his confirmation at 1:06 PM.
Rescission of the “fairness fee”
The debacle came to a close when DCT Secretary xEndeavour announced he would be rescinding the “fairness fee” at the request of the President while still defending the past action of instating it. “Public pressure to sustain the policy is no longer tenable and I am disappointed that the community did not get behind a policy to give newer and less-established players a fighting chance at auction. The policy is reluctantly rescinded and Congress is encouraged to do better in the field of reducing the disparity between new and established player purchasing power.”
Then on August 7th, Secretary xEndeavour was officially impeached by the House of Representatives, initiated by the petition. The vote passed with a decisive 8-1-0 margin and was formally announced by Speaker of the House, Omegabiebel. xEndeavour now heads to the Senate for a trial for his impeachment.