Jamie - Security Council Admission

Kiwi

Kiwi

TNPer
The Security Council by unanimous verdict has approved Jamie for the Security Council. I know ask the RA to express it's confidence in Jamie so that he may be admitted to the SC.

Feel free to discuss and then motion to a vote, accordingly.
 
I don't have anything against Jamie, but I don't have anything for him either. My point being that I don't necessarily feel that Jamie is even a member here because of his lack of participation in the forum. I don't feel his presence around here like I do with most of the other SC members. The security council, to me, is a list of nations who have demonstrated their commitment to this region over time, and often. I don't really feel that Jamie is up to that standard for who I think should be elected to the council.

That being said, I guess I won't really oppose his being elected, but I do question his motivation for joining. I hope it's not "because I meet the requirements", though I have very little indication of any other possible reason because of the aforementioned distance maintained by our current delegate.
 
I understand that. I was talking about my perception, which is of course a matter of personal opinion. I just wish I saw him participate on the board more is all. :P
 
Jamie has shown his commitment to the region, to dispute that is ridiculous. He's also incredibly active and is on every single day.

So he doesn't post in the forum every day. Ok? So? He's still online. He's not much of a talker, but luckily SC members aren't required to have to post all day every day. Further, when something important does come up, Jamie does participate, so I don't think he'd shurk off his duties in the SC either.

I think Jamie would be a fine addition to the SC and I'm not going to vote no just because he's shy. I'm also not going to put my petty squabbles over the protection of the region either.
 
I'm not voting no because of his post history. I am voting no because he broke the law.

I support Delegate's rights in all matters but if the sitting Delegate elects to support a specific form of government then they should adhere to their own rules.
 
I have just amended the proposal/voting procedures. This proposal falls under the procedure outlined in the "non-legislative proposals" section, which I will re-post here for convenience:
Gulliver:
Standing Procedures:
Non-Legislative Proposal Procedures
  1. Any member may introduce a proposal to exercise a power of the Assembly besides enacting, amending or repealing laws by creating a thread in the Meeting Chambers or Private Halls subforums.
  2. Any member of the Regional Assembly may call for a vote on the proposal by posting "motion to vote", or a functional equivalent in the thread. Any other member may second such a motion.
  3. Once the proposal has been moved and seconded, the Speaker will schedule a vote.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
What has Jamie done?

He's always on, he's always up to date on what's going on and has made a great delegate. His leadership style and utilization of the executive is different to McM/Elu but different isn't the same as wrong.

And DD - Blackshear and Pasargad don't exactly maintain heavy activity.
 
Kiwi:
What has Jamie done?

He's always on, he's always up to date on what's going on and has made a great delegate. His leadership style and utilization of the executive is different to McM/Elu but different isn't the same as wrong.

And DD - Blackshear and Pasargad don't exactly maintain heavy activity.
Click to expand...
Election fraud is still a crime in this region.

The Delegate made an accusation against The Minister on the first day of the Justice Election cycle solely for the intention of disparaging his standing before the electorate. The nation in question had been in Osiris for nearly three weeks prior to the election per the Complaint and yet the timing was curiously delayed to coincide with the election. Further, the complaint was made incorrectly with no evidence beyond a screenshot of a third nation's endorsement record. This in no way indicated The Minister's involvement.

But, Jamie is well-liked and plays nice, so he does not have to follow the rules. That has been the case in this region since Twoslit. So long as the object of the rule-breaking is a nation that is not as well liked as most others then breaking the law is overlooked. No worries. I have known that to be the case for a long time.

Either the Delegate intentionally sought to defraud the electorate and/or disparage the character of The Minister through the timing of his spurious complaint or I am giving him too much credit and he is just grossly incompetent. Either way, it will still be a vote of no from me. Not that it matters. Everything passes here.
 
I'm sure that will be entirely settled in court soon enough. Jamie has not been found guilty of anything yet, and everything does not pass here.

We haven't had much input into this thread yet, so hopefully a few more RA members will get involved and have their voices heard.
 
I think this is too early, personally. Jamie is currently the Delegate of the region, and as such has no need to be on the Security Council, and there are a few reasons why he perhaps shouldn't be on it. He meets the influence requirements but only on the inaccurate SPDR, being still ranked a minnow.

Long story short, this is something I would probably support when Jamie's term as Delegate is over, but not yet.
 
Although I do agree that perhaps this would be better for after Jamie's term ends, I wholeheartedly shall support it.
 
SillyString:
Belschaft:
He meets the influence requirements but only on the inaccurate SPDR, being still ranked a minnow.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by "inaccurate SPDR". Can you clarify?
Click to expand...
SPDR is a rating of combined influence in all regions, and as the accumulation/decrease rates are unknown with any real accuracy in all cases except where a nation has only updated in one region ever it can not be assumed to be reflective of a nations influence in any one region. It is probable that you eventually lose all influence you have in a region when you leave it, but we neither know the timeframe or if that is even the case. It was for this reason that some people objected changing from a influence ranking qualifier to a SPDR one.

As far as records indicate Jamie Anumia has always been in TNP so that isn't an issue here, but I was just making the point that SPDR isn't always accurate and shouldn't be trusted. Probably could have worded that better.
 
That's fair, but I've actually been doing some poking into influence decay rates - you definitely lose all influence you accrued, and, as a general rule, at a faster rate than you gain fresh influence.

Since vassal ranking is no longer a prerequisite, but rather an option when someone's true TNP influence rating isn't known, I'm not sure why you're saying he only meets the SPDR requirements. That's all there are.
 
Make sure to send me your data :P

I had some of Elu's, and was working largely from his conclusions. I know Durk claims to have the exact equations worked out.
 
Question for Jamie;

Would you ban a nation from the North Pacific if required to do so in order to protect the region from a couper/rogue/unknown take over, even if banning that nation would result in your influence being reduced to 0 or to such a level that you would no longer qualify for SC membership?
 
mcmasterdonia:
Question for Jamie;

Would you ban a nation from the North Pacific if required to do so in order to protect the region from a couper/rogue/unknown take over, even if banning that nation would result in your influence being reduced to 0 or to such a level that you would no longer qualify for SC membership?
Click to expand...
After consideration, I'd say yes. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of a SC member to protect the region's security.
 
Jamie:
mcmasterdonia:
Question for Jamie;

Would you ban a nation from the North Pacific if required to do so in order to protect the region from a couper/rogue/unknown take over, even if banning that nation would result in your influence being reduced to 0 or to such a level that you would no longer qualify for SC membership?
Click to expand...
After consideration, I'd say yes. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of a SC member to protect the region's security.
Click to expand...
I have logs of you saying otherwise, so my vote is staying no.

Changing your mind to get put onto the SC is just as bad imo.
 
Sanctaria:
Jamie:
mcmasterdonia:
Question for Jamie;

Would you ban a nation from the North Pacific if required to do so in order to protect the region from a couper/rogue/unknown take over, even if banning that nation would result in your influence being reduced to 0 or to such a level that you would no longer qualify for SC membership?
Click to expand...
After consideration, I'd say yes. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of a SC member to protect the region's security.
Click to expand...
I have logs of you saying otherwise, so my vote is staying no.

Changing your mind to get put onto the SC is just as bad imo.
Click to expand...
This is generally one of those times when you provide said logs, to show actual evidence instead of just claimed evidence.
 
It was in the cabinet room, I'd have to get permission from Jamie to post them.

Though McM having had to ask the question should be proof enough the discussion did take place.
 
Sanctaria:
Jamie:
mcmasterdonia:
Question for Jamie;

Would you ban a nation from the North Pacific if required to do so in order to protect the region from a couper/rogue/unknown take over, even if banning that nation would result in your influence being reduced to 0 or to such a level that you would no longer qualify for SC membership?
Click to expand...
After consideration, I'd say yes. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of a SC member to protect the region's security.
Click to expand...
I have logs of you saying otherwise, so my vote is staying no.

Changing your mind to get put onto the SC is just as bad imo.
Click to expand...
You are correct. But after being able to investigate into more depth, I realize my comment was both statistically incorrect, and wrong. So yes, I take it back.
 
That is at the heart of the commitment the SC demands of a nation. I'm sure I speak for FEC as well when I say that we have worked hard over many years and are proud of our status as the two most influential nations in the entire game. But we would blow it all in a heartbeat to save the region. That's what the SC does. We pledge to lay down our influence in service to TNP.

I can understand a nation NOT wanting to make that kind of commitment, and I'm ok with that. It's not everyone's cup of tea. But if they feel that way then they have to be honest with themselves and the region.

If Jamie is ambivalent about the responsibilities involved, then maybe now is not the time. He should perhaps withdraw his application. In any case I will not be changing my vote. I trust Jamie to stand by his oath, should he decide to serve.
 
Just a thought, but wouldn't the sanity clause of the SC law prevent someone from being removed from the SC because they used their influence to protect the region?
 
I've changed my vote to nay based on this.

This shouldn't be a question to an SC member. You do what you gotta do to protect the region. Any hesitation on this point, should be a nay vote, imo. Sorry, Jamie.
 
SillyString:
Just a thought, but wouldn't the sanity clause of the SC law prevent someone from being removed from the SC because they used their influence to protect the region?
Click to expand...
Silly is right.
 
I don't think the issue is whether or not Jamie will be kicked off the SC for protecting the region, but the fact that there is a hesitation over whether or not to spend influence to protect the region.
 
The issue for me is what Great Bights Mum essentially said. As a nation with high influence, if you choose to be on the Security Council and you are admitted you have a responsibility to protect the region. The same is said if you are the Delegate. If it comes down to it, and you are required to drain the entirety of your influence in order to protect the region, it should be done. Influence is just influence, you can grow it again. I have no doubt in my mind that the long serving SC members would do away with their influence in order to protect the region from harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top