[PASSED] Appointment of Gorundu as Election Commissioner

Fregerson

Secretly here
-
-
-
TNP Nation
PotatoFarmers
Discord
Freg#0420
Delegate St George:
I am appointing @Gorundu as Election Commissioner, subject to a confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.

@Gorundu has been appointment to serve as an Election Commissioner by Delegate @St George. I open the floor to discussions about this appointment.

Additionally, I invite the Delegate provide statements in support of the appointment.

Once moved, the motion that I will be putting to vote for this confirmation is as follows:

Motion:
The Regional Assembly confirms the appointment of Gorundu to the Election Commission.
 
@Gorundu

A citizen chooses to use the private ballot to vote. Is the name of the citizen revealed to the other election commissioners present for the election?

Do you need to adjust start and stop times for time zones during an election cycle?
 
I see no reason to deny Gorundu the position, especially considering how long he's been around and how good the EC's support structure is.
 
Additionally, I invite the Delegate provide statements in support of the appointment.
Gorundu has served the election commission ably and competently during their term, supervising the November 2021 Judicial Elections in that time. Their term was coming up and they accepted my offer of another term.
 
@Gorundu

A citizen chooses to use the private ballot to vote. Is the name of the citizen revealed to the other election commissioners present for the election?

Do you need to adjust start and stop times for time zones during an election cycle?
1. The names of private ballot voters are available to the other election commissioners present for the election, under this amendment to the Election Commission rules in 2018.

2. I'm not completely sure what you're asking, but times are displayed using the BBCode feature that automatically adjusts the time to the time zone setting of the user.
 
2. I'm not completely sure what you're asking, but times are displayed using the BBCode feature that automatically adjusts the time to the time zone setting of the user.

I'll rephrase the question for Dreadton:

You are supervising an election. Your partner starts the voting thread at 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (GMT-5). On the final day of voting, you discover that your partner didn't use a (time=...) code and manually put in "4:00 PM (your forum time) as the stop time. Because of this, everyone sees the stop time as 4:00 PM their time. Which action should you take?
A: Edit the opening post to insert the correct time code, and end the voting phase at 4:00 PM (GMT-5).
B: End the voting phase at 4:00 PM (GMT-11) to ensure that American Samoa gets up until 4 PM their time.
C: Neither of the above. Explain what you would do differently.
 
This seems tasteless to me, regardless of if you have a point or not.
I'm not trying to prove a point here, I was just reminded by the more recent nominations that perhaps this should be moving forward, and I don't see a point in waiting or asking for someone else to do it. Plus there needs to be a seconder anyway.
I'll rephrase the question for Dreadton:

You are supervising an election. Your partner starts the voting thread at 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (GMT-5). On the final day of voting, you discover that your partner didn't use a (time=...) code and manually put in "4:00 PM (your forum time) as the stop time. Because of this, everyone sees the stop time as 4:00 PM their time. Which action should you take?
A: Edit the opening post to insert the correct time code, and end the voting phase at 4:00 PM (GMT-5).
B: End the voting phase at 4:00 PM (GMT-11) to ensure that American Samoa gets up until 4 PM their time.
C: Neither of the above. Explain what you would do differently.
Setting aside the fact that the hypothetical situation is an extremely stupid thing for an Election Commissioner to do and that either myself or a keen-eyed Election Commissioner or citizen would have discovered such an error long before the final day of voting, my response would be option A. I don't think we need to assume that there are people waiting until the literal last minute to cast their vote, and remember exactly when the vote ends in order to do so (and these people, if they exist, would be the ones to notice the time is wrong in the first place), so as I see it there's no one really disadvantaged by the error. It would be a matter of fixing the post to show when the vote was always supposed to end.
 
I'm not trying to prove a point here, I was just reminded by the more recent nominations that perhaps this should be moving forward, and I don't see a point in waiting or asking for someone else to do it. Plus there needs to be a seconder anyway.
By that I meant you had a point that discussion stalled. You certainly could have posted to that effect, asked for more questions, nudged someone. You may think it's silly or unnecessary artifice to have a standard about motioning your own confirmation, you may think it's no big deal because the position is no big deal, but it's a line that's never been crossed. There's still some semblance of propriety and formality to what we do, and that's part of what makes TNP, TNP. And at the very least, you shouldn't make yourself indistinguishable from a spammy newcomer who begs for a ministry or that new guy in FA who thinks he can unilaterally ask other regions for embassies and order his own interview with media like it's a pizza. We would never accept this from them, we especially shouldn't accept it from you because you're the kind of player who should be above that sort of thing. I don't support that and consequently I cannot support your confirmation this time.
 
Last edited:
By that I meant you had a point that discussion stalled. You certainly could have posted to that effect, asked for more questions, nudged someone. You may think it's silly or unnecessary artifice to have a standard about motioning your own confirmation, you may think it's no big deal because the position is no big deal, but it's a line that's never been crossed. There's still some semblance of propriety and formality to what we do, and that's part of what makes TNP, TNP. And at the very least, you shouldn't make yourself indistinguishable from a spammy newcomer who begs for a ministry or that new guy in FA who thinks he can unilaterally ask other regions for embassies and order his own interview with media like it's a pizza. We would never accept this from them, we especially shouldn't accept it from you because you're the kind of player who should be above that sort of thing. I don't support that and consequently I cannot support your confirmation this time.
Election Commissioner confirmations are pretty routine and mundane affairs, and this is not the first time we momentarily forgot there's still a nomination outstanding and left it in the wayside. I certainly could have posted to invite more questions - it didn't really cross my mind because a few had already been asked and it's in many ways a formality anyway, especially for re-confirmations. And I didn't think it was something I needed to bother the Delegate for - to motion for a vote on a mundane confirmation. But I do accept there were different courses of action available and I chose a rather unusual one. Nevertheless, I'm not sure your comparison really holds up - I was asked by the Delegate if I would like to continue in the position, and I agreed, hence why this thread exists in the first place. I'm not begging for a position or trying to order the Regional Assembly around - just trying to get a routine item through the process. It's an apple-to-oranges comparison - not even that - it's like an apples-to-potatoes comparison. The real decision is always made on the voting floor - whoever brings it there is mere procedurals.
 
“Mere procedural” ah yes. And the questioning is a “formality” so why bother with convention and custom and basic good manners right?

I’m not even surprised you can’t see why this is an issue. I’ll file this with the other examples of questionable judgment you have exhibited in the past.
 
“Mere procedural” ah yes. And the questioning is a “formality” so why bother with convention and custom and basic good manners right?

I’m not even surprised you can’t see why this is an issue. I’ll file this with the other examples of questionable judgment you have exhibited in the past.
I answered the questions both before and after the motion in detail and to the best of my ability. I think that's the most important thing. TNP has many conventions, and I doubt we can even make a complete list of them even if we tried, because most people either don't know them or aren't sure how hard-set they are. The latter was the case with me really - I didn't think people would care that much about it, and honestly I still don't know if people other than you do. If we were talking about the convention of abstaining in your own confirmation and election votes (which has been recently broken), then I would perhaps understand more what the fuss is about "propriety" and such. Unfortunately it seems that over the years I have given you the impression of having some sort of deficiency in my judgment because of some rather inconsequential words, and I wish I can prove to you otherwise, but I suspect you'll be difficult to convince.
 
Last edited:
I object to the scheduling of the vote.

I have no problem with the candidate, but like Ghost, I do not like that one of the motions is by the candidate themselves.
 
Last edited:
Mr Speaker @Fregerson,

As there has been no further discussion, I'd like to move for a vote.
I second the motion to vote.
The motion to vote is noted. It will be scheduled to be held in 1 day.

I object to the scheduling of the vote.

I have no problem with the candidate, but like Ghost, I do not like that one of the motions being by the candidate themselves.
The objection is noted. If there are 2 more members objecting to the vote, the vote scheduled will be cancelled.
 
I answered the questions both before and after the motion in detail and to the best of my ability. I think that's the most important thing. TNP has many conventions, and I doubt we can even make a complete list of them even if we tried, because most people either don't know them or aren't sure how hard-set they are. The latter was the case with me really - I didn't think people would care that much about it, and honestly I still don't know if people other than you do. If we were talking about the convention of abstaining in your own confirmation and election votes (which has been recently broken), then I would perhaps understand more what the fuss is about "propriety" and such. Unfortunately it seems that over the years I have given you the impression of having some sort of deficiency in my judgment because of some rather inconsequential words, and I wish I can prove to you otherwise, but I suspect you'll be difficult to convince.
This isn’t really a convention that TNP invented organically, it’s common sense. I don’t really know how I could explain it better, it’s not that hard to grasp the problem. Might be best for you to stop trying to talk around it though, because you’re right, I don’t think you can convince me that I’m out of line or unfair here.

My poor opinion of your judgment is beyond the scope of this debate, but suffice to say, it’s not due to “inconsequential words.” It was earned through repeated observation of careless and unapologetic behavior and statements that you have never considered to be a problem, much like this latest thing.
 
I'd like to make a comment on the appropriateness of an EC appointee moving the confirmation to a vote. I don't feel it is the same thing as voting for yourself in an election. The former is sending the question along for the RA to decide. The latter is influencing the outcome. (Neither is illegal, nor should it be.) Making the motion isn't on the same level as casting a vote. BTW, when I have run in RL elections, I have damned sure voted for myself. Real politics doesn't have the collegiate atmosphere we enjoy here.
 
For the record, this has happened before.
Appreciate the reminder. I clearly forgot about that, and clearly didn’t care for it when it happened back then. I would note how relatively recent it is, so this is still something that isn’t typical. Even more of a reason not to let this continue in my book.

Of course @Great Bights Mum it’s not illegal nor should it be. Some things are just norms and convention. You always have the option to weigh these things to whatever extent you feel is appropriate. In my case I’m deciding my vote based on it, but I accept you and many others won’t.
 
Back
Top