Dreadton's Security Council Application
- Thread starter Dreadton
- Start date
Part of the duty of the Security Council is to keep an eye on trends and think about potential attack vectors. The Security Council is in a vulnerable position right now. The things we are doing now will set up how the Security Council will function for the near future. We are a tradition based society. I express concerns about the future risk to the region if we continued the path where more of the Executive is staffed by Security Councilors and Vice Delegates, and vise versa. We currently have a sitting Delegate on the Security Council, the Vice Delegate is also the Chief of Staff. While I do not believe they will coup the region, we should consider how this can play out if bad actors reach this position in similar circumstances. What if (AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) Ruben did want to coup. He has an excellent position to bring people into the Security Council that he wants. The Vice Delegate who is the traditional eyes of the SC in the Executive, is also the Chief of Staff, which way could that fall in the worst case scenario? So I express this concern as my answer to the question about what the Security Council is doing and what I would change. While the possibly of the worst case is low, it remains the biggest attack vector we currently have and its the duty of the Security Council to address it and have a plan.
I will redirect you to this part of your statement, as this part is what I am asking about.
Your statement says I left the government on several occasions, sometimes quite abruptly. A plain text reading of this line implies that I have left the government abruptly and without reason multiple times. yet your follow up response goes back to my leaving from my last positions, one that was addressed. Can you expand on this so I can better understand your concern?
You left on two occasions since I've been around. Once as Minister of Culture, in a rather rude way, and as Security Councillor, in the most explosive way possible, casting suspicion on an institution that works on trust. I have seen no change in behaviour or attitude because you haven't been involved at all since. You say you were petty and you've apologised to Ghost for calling him a snake. That's a start. I have no reason to believe you won't repeat this, however, given that actions speak louder than words. There have been no actions apart from your controversial mod actions that angered the entire community, and I had to intervene to clean up your mess and speak to allies about how you're not actually a bad person. That's OOC, though, but it's currently the only thing I have to go off of because your other involvement in regional affairs has been rather unserious and unnoteworthy.
Since the questions and answers have been declassified, I'll repost my comments on them here.
I take a lot of issue with this paragraph. I can't help but feel referred to in this section, and I must say it gives me an icky feeling. Seeing problems where there aren't any is paranoia, a feeling that can rarely be acted on in my experience. If he wants the SC to manage its own business without interference from the Delegate, fair enough, but that's also not a problem. The Security Council is technically a part of the executive branch, but it's not subservient to or an extension of the Delegate. It's a check and balance. I do not recognise this problem, and it feels like he's seeing things that aren't there. Alternatively, he feels as though the Delegate's resources in the executive shouldn't be at the disposal of the SC. That is something I object to in every capacity. My government is committed and will always be committed to helping the SC in its efforts in any way possible. It's impossible for the two not to be intertwined in at least some capacity. It is the Integration Ministry that keeps encouraging the gameside to endorse us, it is the Foreign Affairs Ministry that keeps us informed on foreign threats as they develop, and it is the intelligence that the Delegate receives from various sources that helps this council do its job. One cannot survive without the other.
The Security Council is independent in every way possible. I do not see that changing any time soon, and I find the implication that this has changed somehow to be strange and baseless. Political repercussions are impossible because the Delegate has no legal authority over this Council and never will. I also find it a rather amusing insult to say that we would be too scared to act in a coup scenario out of fear of political repercussions. We are the political repercussions if the Delegate does something they shouldn't.
I assume this is referring to how the Delegate and the Vice Delegate interact with the SC when it does SC business. Every Delegate and Vice Delegate knows their role and position in this council, and when they don't, they get told off. This is not that deep at all. If he's referring to how the Vice Delegate has taken a more active role in the executive government, this simply depends on the person and how close they are to the Delegate. I was really involved in the executive as VD, because I was also serving as Chief of Staff. Voop is in the same boat. Marcus wasn't, Sil wasn't. This seems like a battle that should be fought in the RA or during election season rather than in the SC. It introduces politics into this place, one of the few places where we aren't out to fight one another based on ideology or political ideas.
I have read your post and don't think most of it is in need of response. It feels like you are taking a personal affront to a basic security assessment. My position is not new, i have expressed it offhandedly in the past.
I will address your reference to a moderation action, as I have also brought up my mod experience it is only fair. The "angry community" you refer to was a group of players who came in to force the mod team to act against a member in a way that they wanted us to act. Why they came for this particular reason I can only speculate. We as a team prefer to take time and review facts when we are able before making a decision. I moderated them the same way I would moderate everyone else where, should they attempt to bully and pressure people, and we cannot take political and foreign affairs consideration into account when performing moderating duties. It is one of the core reasons we keep the two separated. Sometimes I am a bit heavy handed and aggressive in actions when I feel the need to act quickly, thus I tend to request feedback from other team members after acting and have them review.
I will address your reference to a moderation action, as I have also brought up my mod experience it is only fair. The "angry community" you refer to was a group of players who came in to force the mod team to act against a member in a way that they wanted us to act. Why they came for this particular reason I can only speculate. We as a team prefer to take time and review facts when we are able before making a decision. I moderated them the same way I would moderate everyone else where, should they attempt to bully and pressure people, and we cannot take political and foreign affairs consideration into account when performing moderating duties. It is one of the core reasons we keep the two separated. Sometimes I am a bit heavy handed and aggressive in actions when I feel the need to act quickly, thus I tend to request feedback from other team members after acting and have them review.
Last edited: