Siwale's Security Council Application

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wonderess:
I cannot believe that this straw man of my position is being perpetuated. I do not care about Siwale not being in VC or telling us about his real life self. Those are claims made by my most esteemed opposition, McMasterdonia.
Click to expand...
:eyeroll:
I mainly see Siwale speak in official capacities or when he must to obtain something he desires. Sometimes he may just say something short about being a sloth, but it is never anything substantial or representative of the person.
Click to expand...
And how is this disqualifying from being on the Security Council, which is a role with almost entirely on-site responsibilities?
VC and being in the real life channel are not the only part of that. If he were to speak up in the RP server from time to time or taken part in the Ren Fair festivities then that woould demonstrate that communal spirit.
Click to expand...
Yes let's require everyone to post in places they don't have an interest in to hold public office. I expect to see deputy speakers and attorney generals posting in RP every day from now on.
I am not here to smear him or paint him as bad, but engagement and working toward belonging is vital.
Click to expand...
Why is that vital for a role that has nothing to do with that kind of thing?
I completely oppose the idea that just because he can do the government work then that is enough. No. I believe we should elect people who are engaged with the whole of the region and enjoy doing it.
Click to expand...
Well for one we're not electing anyone here. And no one is advocating for putting Siwale on the Security Council "because he can do the government work". For someone who railed against a straw man in this very post, you're remarkably good at making them.
 
St George:
:eyeroll: And how is this disqualifying from being on the Security Council, which is a role with almost entirely on-site responsibilities?Yes let's require everyone to post in places they don't have an interest in to hold public office. I expect to see deputy speakers and attorney generals posting in RP every day from now on.
Why is that vital for a role that has nothing to do with that kind of thing?
Well for one we're not electing anyone here. And no one is advocating for putting Siwale on the Security Council "because he can do the government work". For someone who railed against a straw man in this very post, you're remarkably good at making them.
Click to expand...
It is about principle, MJ. I want all people in government to be a part of the community regardless of their responsibilities. I would say the same thing about any other nomination. This is not just a Siwale thing but a general standard that I would use for any candidate for any position.

Yes let's require everyone to post in places they don't have an interest in to hold public office. I expect to see deputy speakers and attorney generals posting in RP every day from now on.
Click to expand...

Once again, not at all what I was suggesting. Too much straw, my man.
 
Wonderess:
It is about principle, MJ. I want all people in government to be a part of the community regardless of their responsibilities. I would say the same thing about any other nomination. This is not just a Siwale thing but a general standard that I would use for any candidate for any position.
Click to expand...
Siwale is part of the community, as much as you or I or anyone else. You are not the arbiter of who is part of our community or not. Someone who doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of interaction is as much part of the community as someone who does.

Who even are you, anyway, to be making judgements on whether someone is part of the community? What gives you the right to do so?
 
St George:
Siwale is part of the community, as much as you or I or anyone else. You are not the arbiter of who is part of our community or not. Someone who doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of interaction is as much part of the community as someone who does.

Who even are you, anyway, to be making judgements on whether someone is part of the community? What gives you the right to do so?
Click to expand...
Someone can hold positions and win elections. However this is not the same as acting or being part of the community. I can be on the citizenship roll for years and still not act in a communal manner. If you disagree with my view on Siwale's fulfillment of that role or even the importance of it then that is your right, and it is valid. I raise my concerns because I think they are important and worth considering. Take them as you will, but realize they are valid as your comments are valid. I find you and I have the same disagreement over and over in different contexts.
 
Siwale has made close to 8000 posts on this forum. Surely the bar for community engagement should not be set higher than that.

I have found it a pleasure to work with Siwale. He has always responded in a prompt, friendly, and helpful manner. I'm glad he wants to serve the region in this capacity, and I'm looking forward to having him join the SC.
 
Siwale is like me - he participates in the community through government service. I have had quite a number of positive personal interactions with Siwale, mostly by working with him in the government. He's not a stranger. I don't really get where you're coming from here, Wonderess. What specifically do you think Siwale should have been doing differently all this time, and what bearing does that have on his qualifications for SC? Please avoid the vagueries you've offered so far, and tell me what measurable standard Siwale falls short of.
 
Look, Siwale has been known to mistreat people over the course of discussing political business. The problem is that these people are in a political state where to say so would not be good for them which is why I have been as vocal as I have been, for their sake. I will not reveal their grievances as that is not my place. I have done what I can and there is nothing more I can say on the matter. Those who can speak up either have to be brave enough to do so or not. That is all there is to it. There is nothing more I can say on it.
 
I don’t think any weight can be given to these so called people who are in a “political state” so cannot say anything.

If they are not prepared to speak for their own experiences and share their opinion then there is no evidence that these people exist or even hold these opinions at all.
 
Highton:
With regards to Siwale, he has been a respected member of the TNP community for some time. I am grateful to him for appointing me to my first government position. That said, taking into consideration recent events which I am sure I do not need to specify here, I cannot in good conscious support the ascension of Siwale to the esteemed role of security councilor. I thank him for his service as delegate and in the other positions he has held, but do not believe that he should fill this position.
Click to expand...
Can you please elaborate on what you call recent events? I do not believe that it is productive to make such a statement with backing them up. Many might not know of what recent events you are referencing and it would do well to elaborate on this.

Wonderess:
Look, Siwale has been known to mistreat people over the course of discussing political business.
Click to expand...

Can you provide evidence of this accusation? If not please refrain from introducing unfounded accusations hoping to find one that will stick against the nominee.
 
Just for the record, my reasons for opposing Siwale are not the same as Wonderess's. And no, I don't want to articulate them at this time, but people who know me well probably know them. I may in the near future if I feel like debating, because people *will* disagree with me.
 
St George:
Siwale is part of the community, as much as you or I or anyone else. You are not the arbiter of who is part of our community or not. Someone who doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of interaction is as much part of the community as someone who does.

Who even are you, anyway, to be making judgements on whether someone is part of the community? What gives you the right to do so?
Click to expand...
You know, I think that MadJack makes a very good point here and that what he’s saying should by no means go unnoticed. I said this is my essay-style analysis I linked under spoiler in an earlier post from yesterday I made on this same thread, but I’ll say it again because I stand by it:

Wonderess, I do not believe that you’re in a position to subjectively decide in accordance with your own moral code or your own ethical code, or whatever you’re utilizing as a supposed basis for saying so; that Siwale doesn’t belong in this community. I broke it down line by line and aimed to be as critical as possible when I examined your claims, and on nearly every account with only one exception I concluded that by your own statements you’ve made - Siwale fits the bill for everything an engaged member of our community ought to be (and more so what a Security Councilor should be).

Not only does he fit the bill, even with regards to what you yourself said earlier, but he does so with flying colours. I respect the fact that you’re willing to stand your ground and advocate an unpopular point of view even when such an opinion is met with opposition. I say opinion, because you have yet to provide the Regional Assembly with facts as to why Siwale isn’t “a member of this community” or “engaged with the region”.

All and all, the general consensus amongst the citizenry thus far (or at least by having observed those who have spoken here in this discussion) is that there’s no logical reasoning as to why Siwale wouldn’t make an excellent Security Councilor. You may continue to hold true to what you believe in, as is your right to do so, but I’m sorry to say that by the looks of it I - and many others - simply aren’t buying it. Not when you can’t account for the logistics of his ascendency.
 
Last edited:
Syrixia:
Just for the record, my reasons for opposing Siwale are not the same as Wonderess's. And no, I don't want to articulate them at this time, but people who know me well probably know them. I may in the near future if I feel like debating, because people *will* disagree with me.
Click to expand...
If you're not willing to articulate your thoughts here, then I don't consider them valid. Or maybe I should drag it out into the light for you and claim that you believe there's a disconnect between RPers (you) and GPers (Siwale). I'd rather this not be about that, but if you are thinking that way, then you aren't considering what's best for all aspects of the region.
 
I have questions.

1. What other regions are you currently involved in? What positions do you hold in other regions? Do you foresee a change in your answer in the near future?

2. Is there sufficient transparency between the region and the Security Council? If not, how can this be improved?

3. At what minimum frequency should it be expected for a member of the Security Council to tart?

4. Are the laws around the Security Council adequate? If not, how can they be improved?

5. Is the Security Council disengaged from the community or parts of the community? If so, how? If this is an issue, how can it be fixed?
 
Sil Dorsett:
If you're not willing to articulate your thoughts here, then I don't consider them valid. Or maybe I should drag it out into the light for you and claim that you believe there's a disconnect between RPers (you) and GPers (Siwale). I'd rather this not be about that, but if you are thinking that way, then you aren't considering what's best for all aspects of the region.
Click to expand...
It's not about that, and honestly I don't care if you think my thoughts aren't valid because I don't want to get into them at this time. The sole and entire reason I posted my disclaimer was to put it on the record that my reasons were not Wonderess's. If I want to get into them in the future I will.
 
Last edited:
Syrixia:
Just for the record, my reasons for opposing Siwale are not the same as Wonderess's. And no, I don't want to articulate them at this time, but people who know me well probably know them. I may in the near future if I feel like debating, because people *will* disagree with me.
Click to expand...

Syrixia:
It's not about that, and honestly I don't care if you think my thoughts aren't valid because I don't want to get into them at this time. The sole and entire reason I posted my disclaimer was to put it on the record that my reasons were not Wonderess's. If I want to get into them in the future I will.
Click to expand...

You could save yourself some time by just posting :n2d:

That's what it's for :P
 
Praetor:
1. What other regions are you currently involved in? What positions do you hold in other regions? Do you foresee a change in your answer in the near future?
Click to expand...
I’m a citizen of Europeia. That’s the extent of my involvement elsewhere and I don’t foresee this changing in the near future.

Praetor:
2. Is there sufficient transparency between the region and the Security Council? If not, how can this be improved?
Click to expand...
The Security Council should strive to be as transparent as possible, without jeopardizing regional security or the Council’s ability to effectively function. Keeping in mind the nature of the role, I think there is sufficient transparency currently. Achieving a similar level of transparency that we see with other branches of government is not going to be possible without negatively impacting SC functioning.

Praetor:
3. At what minimum frequency should it be expected for a member of the Security Council to tart?
Click to expand...
Security Councillors should ideally be tarting on a daily basis, however, I realize this is not always possible due to other personal commitments. Therefore, Security Councillors should be tarting once a week at a minimum.

Praetor:
4. Are the laws around the Security Council adequate? If not, how can they be improved?
Click to expand...
The laws could be strengthened to bolster SC involvement in the regional community. The biggest change that could be made here is requiring all members of the SC to maintain citizenship. Security Councillor is currently the only government position that does not require citizenship to hold. This made slightly more sense prior to the Citizenship Bill when individuals could be removed as members of the Regional Assembly for failing to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or failing to vote for 20 consecutive days and missing four consecutive RA votes. But even with those added legislative activity requirements, it was a loose argument.

Praetor:
5. Is the Security Council disengaged from the community or parts of the community? If so, how? If this is an issue, how can it be fixed?
Click to expand...
The Security Council is pretty engaged with the forumside component of our community but gameside engagement could be improved. Since Security Councillor is largely a gameside-based role, it is imperative that the Council as a whole maintains a strong presence here even during times of delegacy stability. This can be achieved through frequent RMB and TG interactions with nations in TNP, SC-sponsored events, and frequent endotarting.
 
Wonderess:
Look, Siwale has been known to mistreat people over the course of discussing political business. The problem is that these people are in a political state where to say so would not be good for them which is why I have been as vocal as I have been, for their sake. I will not reveal their grievances as that is not my place. I have done what I can and there is nothing more I can say on the matter. Those who can speak up either have to be brave enough to do so or not. That is all there is to it. There is nothing more I can say on it.
Click to expand...
I am perplexed by you.

Siwale has served the region with distinction, and his nomination was overwhelmingly supported by the SC when it went to vote. Despite Siwale's record, you apparently have serious enough concerns with how he has conducted himself toward other members of the community that, to you, he should be disqualified from SC membership, and you want the community as a whole to support you in voting against him.

And yet, you won't tell us what these concerns are. The impression I'm getting is that you're using "lack of community involvement" as shorthand for "has been known to mistreat people", except that those really aren't the same thing and also, I am sure I am not the only person who has no idea what you are talking about with respect to mistreatment.

You focus a lot on ethics, but whisper campaigns and slippery rumors to try to damage someone's credibility and standing aren't ethical. If Siwale has really engaged in behavior that is serious enough that, if we knew about it, we would decide to vote against his membership, you have a duty to the region and your fellow citizens to make them aware of the details of that behavior. At minimum, you should have contacted the Security Council privately with those details while it was still deliberating, which would have given it a chance to weigh them before taking a vote.

But since you seem adamant in your refusal to provide details... I don't think any of us can rationally lend credence to your concerns. Rumors are all that you're spreading - not awareness.
 
@Crushing Our Enemies No clue on my end. But i would be very interested in ANY evidence to acompany these claims. @Wonderess

If there is no actual evidence this is my challenge to put up or shut up. I will not take anyone at their word. The default position should always be "They are neither trustworthy or untrustworthy" without any concrete evidence then that needle should not move. Personally I I fall into the middle ground which is why I abstained. But even I will not believe these claims unless you actually bring forward something to prove it.
 
Last edited:
I am disappointed that you have chosen to respond to my concerns about your vagueness with.... additional vagueness.

Given that I myself was on the Security Council until yesterday, and that (as I have already stated) I have no idea what you are talking about, you are absolutely incorrect that the Security Council had any knowledge of your concerns. I do not need your assurances - I want facts.

I am the only person who did not vote; the vote was otherwise all-but-unanimously in favor of Siwale's admission; and I only did not vote because I am irreparably lazy rather than because I opposed Siwale's membership. If we assumed that everything you say is, in fact, truthful, let me sum up the extremely serious things you are alleging without evidence or details that provide any credence to your allegations:

1) Siwale, a highly respected former delegate, mistreats other members of the community in a serious enough way that it renders him unfit for service in the Security Council.
2) The person or people that Siwale has mistreated are so afraid of retribution for speaking up about their mistreatment that they are choosing to remain silent and not alert the region, or the Attorney General, or the admin team - except they did confide in you, specifically, for some unknown reason.
3) Some members of the Security Council are at least partly aware of Siwale's mistreatment of other members of the community, and rather than take it seriously they have instead chosen to hide that information from the rest of the Council in order to protect Siwale.

SCers are some of the most dedicated and conscientious people that I know, and the SC has always been able to have frank conversations about applicants among its members. That that precedent might suddenly collapse smacks more of an unfounded conspiracy theory than anything based in reality, and the very idea is an insult to its integrity.

You can think as poorly of Siwale as you like, but this ridiculous rumormongering is getting old. Either bring actionable information to the AG, the RA, or the SC... or let the topic die. The current approach of "spread the same rumors every time Siwale is set to be voted upon" is untenable, and it harms your credibility more than Siwale's.
 
Last edited:
This is just sad. I'm just disappointed that this thread raged into a thread to slander Siwale. I think it's time. I motion for a vote
 
This is... rather interesting I'd say.

Let's see here: @Wonderess claims that the sitting members of the Security Council are well-aware of his concerns that he believes disqualify Siwale's nomination (or, in his own words "at least parts" of such concerns), and yet now three Security Councilors (including the Vice-Delegate) have all come out publicly and made it clear that they have absolutely no idea what those concerns are.

As such, the question I'd like to propose to Wonderess is this - Is the Security Council aware of your concerns or are they unaware of your concerns? You say that you've made parts of such concerns known to them, but unless the Security Councilor your brought those concerns to was either Great Bights Mum, Pallaith, Artemis, Nessuno, or bootsie then saying that you did so is inaccurate. In the circumstance for which you have brought your concerns to a Security Councilor who hasn't yet commented here, then I'd think at the very least the Vice-Delegate would know of some sort of resulting discussion that occurred in the Security Council's chambers in response to such concerns being raised.

Once again, that is not the case here. Considering that Great Bights Mum, Pallaith, Nessuno, Artemis, and bootsie all voted in favour of the passage of Siwale's nomination, I have much more faith in our Security Councilors than to say they'd turn a blind eye to these concerns if said concerns were actually substantial enough to potentially disqualify the nominee. You continue to search for ground to stand on for why Siwale wouldn't make an excellent Security Councillor. Just as I said before, this isn't it, my friend.

(EDIT: Actually, that's four Security Councilors now because until yesterday SillyString was sitting on the Security Council and although they were marked as "not present" for the vote you still could have very well approached them with your concerns at the time if you intended to make the Security Council aware of what exactly those concerns are.)
 
Last edited:
Crushing Our Enemies:
I'll be the first SC member to go on record saying I have no idea what Wonderess is talking about, and confirm that it has not come up in SC discussions. @Great Bights Mum @Sil Dorsett @Pallaith @Lord Lore @bootsie @Artemis @Nessuno @El Fiji Grande any clue???
Click to expand...
I can confirm that I am unaware of the concern that Wonderess has stated the Security Council has expressed. I would be interested to hear this concern that apparently the Security Council should be aware of.
 
I object to the scheduling of the vote.

Wonderess has put forward serious accusations against the nominee.

I ask @Wonderess to answer the following questions:

1. What are the concerns with Siwale? Specific incidents please. No obfuscating with generalizations. No hiding information.

2. Who has Siwale mistreated? How? Again, specifics please.

3. Which Security Councillor did you talk to?

I urge members of the Regional Assembly to prevent unsubstantiated accusations to potentially be ignored should this proposal proceed to the floor. I insist that Wonderess answer these questions directly, without any smoke or mirrors, within a reasonable time frame.

If he does not do so, then the Regional Assembly should move forward to approve of Siwale's application to the Security Council without hesitation or the potential of Wonderess to throw unjustified suspicion on the nominee.
 
Praetor:
I object to the scheduling of the vote.

Wonderess has put forward serious accusations against the nominee.

I ask @Wonderess to answer the following questions:

1. What are the concerns with Siwale? Specific incidents please. No obfuscating with generalizations. No hiding information.

2. Who has Siwale mistreated? How? Again, specifics please.

3. Which Security Councillor did you talk to?

I urge members of the Regional Assembly to prevent unsubstantiated accusations to potentially be ignored should this proposal proceed to the floor. I insist that Wonderess answer these questions directly, without any smoke or mirrors, within a reasonable time frame.

If he does not do so, then the Regional Assembly should move forward to approve of Siwale's application to the Security Council without hesitation or the potential of Wonderess to throw unjustified suspicion on the nominee.
Click to expand...
I concur with Praetor and because of that, I will also be objecting to the scheduling of a formal vote to approve or reject Siwale's nomination. While I don't believe that it's necessarily fair to the nominee to have their nomination process delayed simply because Wonderess has thus far decided to make baseless accusations, Siwale has voiced that he does not have a problem with this vote being delayed.

It's not the nominee's fault that Wonderess has failed to properly address the questions of validity that others in this thread have proposed in response to his mention of so far undisclosed concerns. However, I believe that these questions ought to be answered directly and honestly. While I don't imagine Wonderess is being intentionally evasive when it comes to the nature of what his concerns are, I do think that we should apply pressure in moderation when necessary to get him to bring this information to light.

In my opinion, Siwale has displayed a great sense of integrity throughout this discussion. He's adequately answered the questions asked to him, and he's done so with what many (like myself) would consider satisfactory answers. Meanwhile, Wonderess has done the opposite and I'm sure many others will join me in saying that his concerns need to be voiced either privately or publically before we can take them into account to either dismiss them as being non-existent or accept them as being valid. Personally, I have no reason to do anything but doubt the latter will happen. Until such a point that these concerns are made known and the sense of evasion ceases.
 
I think we can safely assume Wonderess does not actually have any evidence of wrongdoing, and is merely seeking to - bizarrely and ridiculously - just delay things. Whether this is evidence of just attention seeking or a political ploy that has gone too far, I find it disappointing, given Wonderess's professed commitment to honour and uprightedness.
 
Last edited:
I have no political aims, MJ. If I wanted to score political points then I would have kept my mouth shut and let this go by. I thought your understanding of me would make that apparent. Siwale himself is just ignoring me and not engaging what I am saying which is a good political move, but also leaves absent an actual denial of my concerns.

I will no publicly state who it is that has concerns for I do not have permission to do so.

My personal example is a weak one, but it fed into my suspicion about Siwale's way of interacting with the region. When I was Deputy Speaker, Siwale would approach me with overly positive statements such as "There is my favorite deputy speaker!" which I found odd and almost disingenuous. He would then ask me to do something in my capacity which made his first statement seem like a means to make me more cooperative rather than being a genuine statement. When I became speaker and we had disagreements, that tone was completely abandoned for a sharper more unyielding tone. Regarding the frequency of roll checks, Siwale publicly attacked me as defiant and not fulfilling my office. This is his right, but I realized that this change in tone might point to the previous conversations being superficial and not genuine which I find disturbing.

For others who have had worse off experiences, it is their right to remain silent. I cannot and will not out them because I have given my word to keep them from being known without their expressed will to be public about it.
 
I for one have no intention of letting Wonderess's unsubstantiated lies cloud what is a perfectly capable application to the Security Council. This isn't the first time Wonderess has pointed to a phantom individual with some vague concerns that obviously are serious concerns that have already been raised in private to a phantom authority, and which are obviously serious enough that, if we could only know about them, the target of Wonderess's bizarre political maneuvering would be tried and sentenced for treason!

This argument with Wonderess is going nowhere. I, personally, would go so far as to call them lies. There is nothing backing any statements he is making, including his statement that he alerted a Security Councilor about his concerns - which you could point to as an actual lie given that half the SC has stated that they have no idea what he is talking about and the other half voted for the application, rendering the whole point moot since this "concern" is not enough for even a member of the SC to count it as a demerit against Siwale, if this "concern" even exists.

This concern is either a flat-out lie or a minor concern of a similar level to "but he won't talk in VC", which Siwale's record in TNP far outweighs to the point that Wonderess's extant concerns are ridiculous, and the unsubstantiated concerns are no better than lies, being blown out of proportion for some unknown intent.

I motion for an immediate vote.
 
Third. I’m incredibly disappointed in Wonderess. With the amount of time we’ve spent together the past few days with the Ministry of Communications, with me even attending his controversial radio show. If he had any concerns, the ethical thing to do would’ve been to reach out to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top