Lord Byron's Admission to the Security Council

D

Democratic Donkeys

TNPer
The Security Council has voted to approve Lord Byron as a member of the SC. I put forward a motion for the Regional Assembly to vote to admit Lord Byron to the Security Council.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but SC members are able to get much closer to the delegate in endorsements than other nations? It is a position of trust, and I must admit I do not know Lord Byron well enough to trust him.

I have no real reasons to vote against, but then no real reason to vote in favour either.

I abstain.
 
Flem, some of the SC members share that concern, but I;m sure you can post questions here in the RA for Lord Byron to respond to.
 
It is not a question of asking and answering questions. Anybody can answer questions convincingly.

It is about trust. And trust is based on deeds and relationship. I do not know Lord Byron well enough to have that trust.
 
With the changes in influence rules in-game, the SC is looking to expand. Nations who have proven their trustworthiness by serving as Delegate or VD are ideal candidates, but there just are not enough of them. Plus, someone has to be willing to tie-up their WA nation for an extended period of time, do a lot of tarting, and be content with very little excitement, at least during peacetime.

Increasing the ranks of the SC doesn't mean we stop exercising our best judgement on the trust issue. With respect to Lord Byron, I feel comfortable admitting him. We have exchanged PMs on several occasions - more frequently when he was just starting and figuring out the politics here. I'm glad he is willing to serve the region, and I'm confident he will be an asset to the council.
 
This isn't the voting thread, but thank you for your input, God.

The issue of trustworthiness was discussed by the SC, and most of us are willing to take the chance. As GBM stated, we really do need to expand the SC to counter changes in influence, and there is a lack of what we might consider "traditional" candidates.
 
I concur with GBM and DD on this matter.

We need to expand the roles of the SC to counter the influence rules changes.
 
I never heard a single expression of fondness for him fall from the lips of any of those who knew him well...... until I listened to the Security Council's dicussion on his admission :P

I like Lord Byron, I wholeheartedly agree that TNP is the region he is invested in and has every intention of helping to protect it if he is given that task. He seems to take the constitution and the SC seriously and as someone who is not among the inner circle of TNP life he's likely to be more open-minded than most to the many uninitiated nations that go on to gain endorsements.

Congratulations on getting this far! As his contemporary, I have nothing but good memories of his previous participation in the region.

I cannot speak for the rest of the RA, who may want to withhold trust and give it only to a more exposed, proven, and influential nation, and that is their choice. My opinion is for, and I will be voting in favour of Lord Byron's admission to the SC.
 
He doesn't chat much, but then again chatting much shouldn't be a requirement for being in the SC. A commitment to the defence and security of this region should be of the utmost importance for us.

I am FOR his admission.
 
Chasmanthe:
I never heard a single expression of fondness for him fall from the lips of any of those who knew him well...... until I listened to the Security Council's dicussion on his admission :P
Click to expand...
Chas obviously knows his Lord Byron, in more than one sense. I am impressed.

that others vouch for Lord Byron is a great help to those of us who do not know him.
 
As I said in the SC discussion, I think he is trustworthy and his endo levels are better on our side.

I'm supporting his admission.
 
flemingovia:
Chasmanthe:
I never heard a single expression of fondness for him fall from the lips of any of those who knew him well...... until I listened to the Security Council's dicussion on his admission :P
Click to expand...
Chas obviously knows his Lord Byron, in more than one sense. I am impressed.

that others vouch for Lord Byron is a great help to those of us who do not know him.
Click to expand...
I did a little research. :blush:
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Does anyone want to second this so we can go to a vote?
Click to expand...
Seconded. (Do we need someone to second the motion? I thought it automatically went to a vote after Formal Debate, under the current Standing Procedures.)
 
Seeing a motion to vote and a second, a vote shall be scheduled to begin forthwith.

(Do we need someone to second the motion? I thought it automatically went to a vote after Formal Debate, under the current Standing Procedures.)
Click to expand...
The provisions are different for legislative and non-legislative proposals: non-legislative proposals require a second and do not have formal debate.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
Seeing a motion to vote and a second, a vote shall be scheduled to begin forthwith.

(Do we need someone to second the motion? I thought it automatically went to a vote after Formal Debate, under the current Standing Procedures.)
Click to expand...
The provisions are different for legislative and non-legislative proposals: non-legislative proposals require a second and do not have formal debate.
Click to expand...
Ah I see.
 
I know good old LB pretty well.
He's a really funny guy once you get to know him, and although he comes off a LITTLE sarcastic sometimes his intentions are good.
He told me to say thank you to his supporters!
 
As a member of the SC who does not know Lord Byron, I voted for his admission in the SC in part because nothing negative came forward, and in part because I wanted to give the R.A. a chance to vote on the admission and further debate the matter.

I will be abstaining on the R.A. vote for the same reason. I want the R.A. members who are not part of the S.C. to render the decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top