Sil Dorsett's Security Council Application

Siwale

Administrator
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Siwale
Discord
siwale
The Security Council has nominated Sil Dorsett for a seat on the Security Council. The vote for his admission was unanimous, with 7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions and 1 non-voting members.

The Chair now presents this to the Regional Assembly for discussion.
 
I think Sil will make a fine SC member. This gets full support from me.
 
Sil's dedicated and he knows the game. He'll make a great SC member. He has my full support.
 
Sil has been a present and active member of TNP for as long as I can remember, and most certainly longer than that. He has my support.
 
Yalkan:
We don't need more.
Why not? So long as Sil is competent and fulfills his duties in the SC, I don't see any reason to exempt him because they're supposedly too many councillors.
 
Yalkan:
We don't need more.
I disagree with you in this assertion: we absolutely need more.

I understand that you may feel that we have too many councillors, but I urge you to consider the necessity of The North Pacific's security: it is important to have an influence buffer of trusted nations with which to make a rogue element fight harder to gain or maintain control over the region.

We should not become complacent and assume we are uncoupable or untouchable because of our size or the infrastructure we have in place. If anything, I would say we should be more vigilant to threats, not less and another pair of eyes - someone who can be trusted (I voted for Sil's nomination in the Security Council) would be welcomed.

We have lost Kasch, and we've lost Plembobria - my political differences with them aside, the loss of their in-game SPDR and endorsements is a painful blow to the Security Council. You also have varying levels of activity amongst the remaining Councillors - some of us are not as engaged with the community on a daily basis (Roman, Malvad and I) but we maintain our influence levels in-game to ensure we're an influence buffer that can be used to defend the region if necessary.

There are various reasons for why having more security councillors is vital, but the simplest one is preserving the influence of the Delegate. The Delegate should never be the one to ban threats to our security in-game in order to preserve their influence and leave them safe from potential decoy operations. A security councillor should - via whatever mediums are available by law - act as necessary to prevent the Delegate being made vulnerable in that manner (following SC discussions and procedures, not unilaterally).

I don't mind gambling here or there, but I've never been fond of gambling with the security of communities I care for and when I stepped back from NationStates in January I could predict the turn in the air. The North Pacific should not be frivolous with its security, and the more trusted Councillors we have, the safer we are overall.
 
Full support for Sil.

I agree with Raven's assessment of our security needs. It's nice to have about 10 SC members at any given time.
 
I support the addition of Sil Dorsett to the SC, but if I may ask of the applicant, what encouraged you to apply to the SC?

And if I may ask of SC members, as I recall from past SC applicants generally a seat on the council is rejected from those who haven't previously held an elected office. Is that still a metric held of applicants, and if so, what made you consider Sil a good applicant so unanimously when he doesn't meet that metric?
 
While we do, unofficially, like to see applicants who have served in an elected office within TNP, it is not always the case - Malvad, and even myself had not served in such a capacity prior to our joining the council (my own in 2015, I do not remember when Malvad joined). I can also recall when Lennart and Nessuno joined the council, both having never served in an elected position.

Ultimately we look for something which demonstrates the dedication to TNP that we want from councillors, and Sil's service to the Ministry of WA Affairs - spanning some three or more executive terms (12 months+) speaks highly and ticks many of the boxes that we'd expect from people who have served in an elected office.
 
Sil has my 100% support. The work and activity shown since I first found my way here is exactly what is needed for someone that is in the security council.
 
If I may, I would ask the applicant some questions.

Do you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and would you, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to prescribe a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?

Do you think that there is some upper-bound on the number of Councillors that there ought to be? Do you think that we may be near that upper-bound at present?

EDIT: their there
 
I would like to go ahead and offer full support of Sil Dorsett's appointment to the Security Council.

I would also like to go ahead and move for a Vote on this.
 
I think Zyvetskistaahn's questions should be answered before a motion to vote is made, Artemis. I am sure it'd only benefit us if we knew Sil's answers.
 
I would like an opportunity to answer the questions, but I am quite busy this week. I would ask that any motion to vote wait until at least next week and after I have finished my responses to Darc, Zyvet, and anyone else who poses a question
 
Answer me these questions three:

What is your favorite color?

What the capital of Burkina Faso?

In your own words, explain whether The North Pacific's legal system is civil law, common law, both, or neither?
 
Great questions, Elu!

I was about to ask about the capital of Burkina Faso but you got there before me... hopefully, Sil can enlighten us all.

Is it possible to drown in the fountain of eternal life?
 
Anyways, now that I've found some time while I'm on this work-cation, allow me to get on with answering the pending questions.

To Darcania...

TNP has been my home since I first founded my nation and I immediately became interested in the World Assembly Development Program and its mission to strengthen regional security through endorsement exchanges. Beyond that, I've often wondered how I could contribute more in this area. I was however quite aware of the unwritten rule of serving in an elected position first, since being an elected official requires a great deal of trust and even more so for a security councillor. It was only after a third Vice Delegate approached me about being part of the council that I decided to apply anyways. (The first time I was approached about this was February of last year.)

To Zyvet...

1. I believe the current state of disclosure is appropriate. It is wise for the SC to take into consideration the sensitive nature of discussions as it relates to regional security prior to making disclosures other than what is required by law. Even applications and nominations fall into that category, especially when there's the possibility that disclosing a discussion may compromise the SC's ability to act on a potential threat. I think that even disclosing conversations about nominees that passed the first layer of scrutiny compromises conversations about those who have not for a security reason. I would be really curious how the rest of the security council sees that.

2. I believe it would be prudent for the Security Council to formally revoke nominations after a certain amount of time, since as time passes a person's history obviously has more information added to it and these additions may be important enough to evaluate the candidate once again. It may be tough to come up with the best amount of time, but perhaps re-evaluation after 4 months is a starting point. I also think it would be in the council's best interest to evaluate the reasons that the Regional Assembly turned down a candidate and determine if revocation should happen right then and there. I would even advocate for that to be part of the procedure going forward.

3. I trust that the veteran members of the council know the ideal number of councillors needed. There are other factors, such as endorsement counts and the available SPDR of each member, that I think would make a fixed maximum number councillors inadvisable. Those factors also make it hard for me to say whether we are at a reasonable upper-bound or not.

To Eluvatar...

1. Blue. And no, it's not because our flag has blue in it. Just was, though I did have a red phase while working fast food. Reds were managers. >:)

2. Ouagadougou

3. I think TNP law would be considered Civil Law. The Constibilicode is by its very nature Civil Law, as our law is codified in that document. Our court rulings utilize interpretations related to clauses in that document. It is not a case of the court ruling out of common sense or based off any precedent founded on the common sense. Precedent in our court system follows decisions which were already founded from the written Constibilicode.

To Kasch...

Playing "Drown" on anything affected by "Fountain of Eternal Life" would create an infinite loop, as the target would be sent to the graveyard and immediately special summoned into the same "Drown" condition. Therefore it would be an illegal move.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I motion for a vote on Sil's application.
Lord Ravenclaw:
I second.
Motions denied. There has so far been two posts from the applicant, only one of which answered the questions presented and which has been posted within the last 12 hours. Give a couple days for any more followup questions to be asked and answered and I will be willing to put up a vote.

edit: typo
 
Darcania:
mcmasterdonia:
I motion for a vote on Sil's application.
Lord Ravenclaw:
I second.
Motions denied. There has so far been two posts from the applicant, only one of which answered the questions presented and which has been posted within the last 12 hours. Give a couple days for any more followup questions to be asked and answered and I will be willing to put up a vote.

edit: typo

Gulliver:
Non-Legislative Proposal Procedure
  1. Any citizen may introduce a proposal to exercise a power of the Assembly besides enacting, amending, or repealing laws, or ratifying or revoking the ratification of treaties by creating a thread in the Regional Assembly forum or Private Halls subforum.
  2. Any citizen may call for a vote on the proposal by posting "motion to vote", or a functional equivalent in the thread. Any other citizen may second such a motion.
  3. Once the proposal has been moved and seconded, the Speaker will schedule a vote.

Do you intend to update the standing procedures to reflect this new sense of discretion?
 
Eluvatar:
Do you intend to update the standing procedures to reflect this new sense of discretion?
Honestly? My mistake. It's been so long since there's been activity in the RA that I must be getting rusty. With the recent upsurge in activity I will be sure to make sure it doesn't happen again.

My concerns still stand so I will give this an extra day. A vote has been scheduled to begin in three days.
 
Back
Top