Dreadton's Security Council Application

[Dreadton]

My application to the Security Council was rejected with 2 Ayes, 4 Nays, and 0 Abstentions.

I bring my application to the Regional Assembly for review and debate.




My Statement :


Hey guys, my application to the Security Council failed and now goes to you to review. For those of you who do not know me outside my work as an Admin. I have been in the region for over 7 years and have held many positions here. Most important to this was my time as Vice Delegate and Security Councilor. About two years ago, I left formal government work because I got accepted into grad school and it was a great opportunity to further my career. During this time, I continued to work as an Admin here, contributing to the moderation and security of the region, often spending 10-12 hours a week working for you. Now comes a time when I can contribute more to this region as part of the formal government. With the Security Council being half of what it normally is, and knowing how the position works, I thought this is a great opportunity to further help the region and contribute to its well being.

 

[Cretox]

Why post this yourself rather than waiting for the VD to do it alongside a statement from the SC on why they didn’t nominate you, as has been traditionally done? Well, to the extent that something that so rarely happens constitutes a tradition. Your post also breaks from “tradition” by not containing a motion. Do you intend to post one only after some discussion has happened?

In any case, I look forward to any commentary by the SC, whether that be their traditional statement or comments from individual members. We haven’t had a failed nomination vote in quite a while.

Edit: The SC’s vote on Dreadton’s application can be found here. I suppose I should’ve said “precedent” and not “tradition” in reference to the VD posting this sort of thread, but whatever.

 

[Dreadton]

Why post this yourself rather than waiting for the VD to do it alongside a statement from the SC on why they didn’t nominate you, as has been traditionally done? Well, to the extent that something that so rarely happens constitutes a tradition. Your post also breaks from “tradition” by not containing a motion. Do you intend to post one only after some discussion has happened?

In any case, I look forward to any commentary by the SC, whether that be their traditional statement or comments from individual members. We haven’t had a failed nomination vote in quite a while.

There was a discussion in Citizens Chat on discord were a point was made that the VD is not required to open discussion and the member who's application was rejected should make the effort. I thought that a very good point, and as I said in Discord when asked "I am asking for a lot by asking the RA to override the SC and I want to put forth the effort to earn it."

As for the Motion, I was going to wait till the SC issued its statement, but if you look to the last SC application, abet one that was supported by the SC, there was no formal motion. I will be happy to provide one now.

The Regional Assembly appoints Dreadton to the Security Council.

 

[Cretox]

There was a discussion in Citizens Chat on discord were a point was made that the VD is not required to open discussion and the member who's application was rejected should make the effort. I thought that a very good point, and as I said in Discord when asked "I am asking for a lot by asking the RA to override the SC and I want to put forth the effort to earn it."

This is a publicly viewable subforum.

 

[Dreadton]

This is a publicly viewable subforum.

Im not sure your point. I am relaying what I am thinking and said, which is in my prerogative.

 

[Cretox]

Im not sure your point. I am relaying what I am thinking and said, which is in my prerogative.

That's not what you said, unless you're suggesting that this "point [that] was made" which you described in detail and thought was "a very good point" was made by you.

My point here is that while I certainly don't think you maliciously leaked, it's still a careless handling of talk from a citizen-only area, which isn't a good sign from someone asking to not only be given access to SC-only areas but to get it over the objection of the SC itself. Or at least that would be my point, if you weren't a former VD and SC member yourself who as far as I'm aware did not mishandle information from those exact areas and did not resign in disgrace, and a current member of the region's community management team to boot. You're very clearly not some run-of-the-mill applicant who didn't make the cut. So I'm very curious indeed to hear just why a supermajority of the SC voted against readmitting you, especially with the body's membership being so low.

 

[Dreadton]

That's not what you said, unless you're suggesting that this "point [that] was made" which you described in detail and thought was "a very good point" was made by you.

My point here is that while I certainly don't think you maliciously leaked, it's still a careless handling of talk from a citizen-only area, which isn't a good sign from someone asking to not only be given access to SC-only areas but to get it over the objection of the SC itself. Or at least that would be my point, if you weren't a former VD and SC member yourself who as far as I'm aware did not mishandle information from those exact areas and did not resign in disgrace, and a current member of the region's community management team to boot. You're very clearly not some run-of-the-mill applicant who didn't make the cut. So I'm very curious indeed to hear just why a supermajority of the SC voted against readmitting you, especially with the body's membership being so low.

Ok so you are discussing it in the context that particular channel would maybe be confidential. I think there is still some leeway in how that law would apply there. However, I would point out that discussion of a public document would not likely be classified with how it was spoken about by me in general terms as to what others said, much the same way the court case we recently had in which the Court recommended speaking in general terms with specifics remaining secret. At least that would be my argument should it become an issue. Where as some other areas of TNP discord has a higher standard of confidentiality. As for my specific thoughts, those were issue as my opinion and one I can share freely under our Bill of Rights. While you may argue it was careless, I would argue it was done carefully within the bounds of the law. An argument can be had ether way, on that particular issue, where as the SC areas have a clear and unambiguous line.

I would take you back to my terms as VD where I was the first responsible for the declassification process and required to go through the backlog of documents that had built up over the years and my terms there and as Justice should there be even a partial question on how i would handle information.

As for the SC, I am sure they will have a communal (and maybe personal) response in due course.

 

[Lucien Mounier]

Dreadton was basically discussing the same issue that Cretox raised earlier in the thread. It's common for political issues in TNP to be discussed both in citizen areas that are and aren't viewable to non-citizens, because we have a mix of them for similar purposes. Not sure I see an issue here, it seems irrelevant to the question at hand.

I do want to hear from the Security Council, and equally from its dissenting members GBM and Marcus, because I was surprised to see this outcome.

 

[Dreadton]

While we wait, are there questions I can answer?

 

[St George]

While we wait, are there questions I can answer?

As one sometimes prickly pear to another, do you think you can work well with the current SC members?

 

[Dreadton]

As one sometimes prickly pear to another, do you think you can work well with the current SC members?

I work with people I do not like all that time. Being an old fart like myself, requires putting aside personal feelings in order to get the job done. I cannot speak as to how others may act or respond, but from my side the job will come first. Do not mistake me, I will be opinionated and vocal, but once a decision is made I will work towards accomplishing it. And @St George you are very familiar with how hard I will work from our time when I served under you in the Executive, and you know how hard I will work even if I disagree with the plan.

 

[St George]

I work with people I do not like all that time. Being an old fart like myself, requires putting aside personal feelings in order to get the job done. I cannot speak as to how others may act or respond, but from my side the job will come first. Do not mistake me, I will be opinionated and vocal, but once a decision is made I will work towards accomplishing it. And @St George you are very familiar with how hard I will work from our time when I served under you in the Executive, and you know how hard I will work even if I disagree with the plan.

That is true.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Are you open to bringing more transparency and accountability to the Security Council?

 

[Dreadton]

Are you open to bringing more transparency and accountability to the Security Council?

Interesting Question, what form do you see that taking? Since I first joined, the Security Council records laws were changed that required disclosure after a period of time. It was decided that this would balance the Regions right to know with the Security Council's need to have frank discussions about current matters without worry about political matters. What would you change or want to see?