Vote: Exemptions for Security Council Membership

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
There has been some debate about what requirements that a applicant should be able to be exempted from.

In order to meet Eluvatar's deadline, Gulliver and I came up with the following options so that we may finalize the draft to change the Security Council Provisions.


You can only vote for up to 3 options
 
if a nation does not have high Regional Influence there presence in SC will not be useful and will not contribute to regional security and will make SC just another version of RA .
 
How will their presence not be useful? I banned Durka II with an influence of Minnow. The only reason for Security Council members to have an excessively high influence would be to ban another Security Council member and if that's happening, then the SC is rather useless, isn't it?
 
The reason for Security Council members to have high influence is for them to not all be bannable by a rogue Delegate.
 
There are plenty of non-SC members who fit into that category and they don't have a fancy official title to back them up. If we ever get taken over by an outside force again, it will probably be these nations, and not the Security Council, that save the day.
 
The Security Council is rather unproven and untested, so I guess there are no examples to make the case for or against. Call it a feeling...also because I think the only member of the SC to have ever banned a rouge delegate was GBM.
 
No rogue since the Security Council's creation has lasted longer than 2 weeks, I believe. Shoeless Joe fell extraordinarly swiftly to Ermiarian, a Security Council member, in fact.

And why is banjecting specifically an important qualification?
 
Ermiarian was the elected delegate who then went inactive allowing Durka II to take over who was banned by me, who is not a Security Council member. The only reason why he didn't last two weeks was because of my efforts, not that of the Security Council, who proved useless in the conflict.

Banjecting is the only qualification that matters. The whole point of the SC is to defeat a takeover or a coup.
 
Except you don't defeat a coup by banjecting. You defeat a coup by taking the Delegacy ;)

And Ermarian was never elected Delegate, nice try. He was the sole Security Council member around at the time, and took the reins after New Kervoskia completely vanished, letting SJ seize the delegacy. I was the elected Vice Delegate at the time and I stepped aside for reasons of limited availability.

Here's the timeline:

May: NK elected Delegate, myself Vice Delegate.
July 24th: Shoeless Joe takes the Delegacy from NK.
July 26th: SJ steps aside for Ermarian.

Aug 31st: I call for September elections to take place as mandated
September: During the elections Ermarian and I both disappear, JAL seizes power, Flemingovia (winner of the elections) and you (winner of the VIce Delegacy contest in the elections) defeat him.
 
Eluvatar:
Except you don't defeat a coup by banjecting. You defeat a coup by taking the Delegacy ;)
Click to expand...
Not true, actually. If I hadn't had enough influence to ban Durka, he easily could have overpowered me and taken the seat back. The coup ended with him being sent to Kandyland.

And Ermarian was never elected Delegate, nice try. He was the sole Security Council member around at the time, and took the reins after New Kervoskia completely vanished, letting SJ seize the delegacy. I was the elected Vice Delegate at the time and I stepped aside for reasons of limited availability.
Click to expand...

So you, the elected vice-delegate, stepped aside so that an SC member could become delegate, an SC member who later allowed one of the worst ejection/banning of nations in recent TNP history to occur? Remind me again what the value of the SC is? Because that seems like quite the screw up.
 
JAL is the only one who has needed banjection since 2005, I believe.

I wasn't available enough at the time. And to keep things in perspective, this was late 2010.
 
Yes, he was, and the Security Council wasn't very helpful in that task. I, on the other hand, the only TNP member in history to be blessed with having a mud-slinging release from the Security Council put out for public viewing all but damning me as a supposed traitor, happened to be the one who overthrew him. The so called "untrustworthy" proved their worth on that day.

You must ask yourself, when the shit really hits the fan, who is really going to come to the rescue?
 
Blue Wolf, you seem to be committing a Nirvana fallacy: either we can have a Security Council which is absolutely perfect and never fails, or we can have nothing. It's simply unrealistic and impractical.
 
Gulliver:
Blue Wolf, you seem to be committing a Nirvana fallacy: either we can have a Security Council which is absolutely perfect and never fails, or we can have nothing.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting we have nothing. Actually I think the North Pacific Army is more than capable of taking on the Security Council's role as a specialized tasking. I think we'd all agree the NPA can be considered "worthy".
 
Most people in the armed forces are not going to have the influence built up that would let them stand their grand against a rogue delegate. Moreover, there's no reason it has to be either or, the SC and NPA can both exist and contribute to regional security.
 
The NPA also has more members and is more publicly accountable than the Security Council. Also the NPA will be involved in coordinating any efforts to retake the region so it makes perfect sense to task them with the responsibility.
 
Their every action is being watched, scrutinized, and approved by the Council of Five, the Delegate, the MiniDef, and their own members of course. They are the most watched organization in our region, in terms of accountability.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Gulliver:
Blue Wolf, you seem to be committing a Nirvana fallacy: either we can have a Security Council which is absolutely perfect and never fails, or we can have nothing.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting we have nothing. Actually I think the North Pacific Army is more than capable of taking on the Security Council's role as a specialized tasking. I think we'd all agree the NPA can be considered "worthy".
Click to expand...
according to you It's better to let military take over the region then let members of SC and (who are also members of RA and include the elected Vice delegate) and due to their high influence are virtually unbanable by any rouge delegate guard the region!!!!!!
 
They may be unbannable, but that doesn't mean they are useful in terms of actually defeating the rouge delegate. With the exception of Elu, most of the SC members don't endotart all that often, they are fairly inactive game side, some of them have little to no military experience and even less experience when it comes to combating unendorsement telegrams such as those Durka II used. There are any number of post-Influence feeder coups you can look to and see that those who are taking back power in the end are not typically even in the top 20 of influence for the region with a few rare exceptions.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Their every action is being watched, scrutinized, and approved by the Council of Five, the Delegate, the MiniDef, and their own members of course. They are the most watched organization in our region, in terms of accountability.
Click to expand...
Legally the Council of Five is not mandated, the Delegate and the MiniDef could be the same person. For the sake of efficiency, the executive branch is fairly tightly under the control of the Delegate in our system.

The RA has no means to remove anyone from the NPA, whatsoever.

Having the NPA be responsible for enforcing recall of the Delegate does not seem wise to me, with the current legal framework at least.
 
Eluvatar:
Blue Wolf II:
Their every action is being watched, scrutinized, and approved by the Council of Five, the Delegate, the MiniDef, and their own members of course. They are the most watched organization in our region, in terms of accountability.
Click to expand...
Legally the Council of Five is not mandated, the Delegate and the MiniDef could be the same person. For the sake of efficiency, the executive branch is fairly tightly under the control of the Delegate in our system.

The RA has no means to remove anyone from the NPA, whatsoever.

Having the NPA be responsible for enforcing recall of the Delegate does not seem wise to me, with the current legal framework at least.
Click to expand...
The RA could remove the Minister for Defence however, and indeed the Delegate.

Let not forget that the NPA is filled with a variety of members, they are not brainwashed idiots who would follow the whims of the Delegate to do all bidding. I don't believe that they should be completely responsible for enforcing recall of the delegate, it would involve the military too much in politics. If the Delegate portrayed such actions as being a "military coup" it could make enforcing the recall harder.

Leave that responsibility to the SC. The NPA can of course be involved in the withdrawing of endorsements from the Delegate, and the endorsing of the next person in the L.O.S of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top