Question for the Security Council Chair

Recently, SC member Great Bights Mum let her nation CTE. Despite reviving her nation four days ago, she only has 18 endorsements at the time of this post. She is currently well under the required 200 endorsements or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count needed to maintain Security Council Membership.

So my question is, has she been removed from the Security Council as the law would dictate?

Hello Blue,

I became aware of this situation last night.

At present I am travelling back home (will take about 3 hours). When I get settled I'll access the home PC and will get back to you with further details.

Aba.

As I am now back "home" I can give a more detailed answer to this than previously, I also aim to do so with the continued transparency I had promised in my term as Chair of the Council.

The last time I did a routine check of members nations was approximately two weeks ago. At that time GMB showed no indication of CTE'ing and thus no further checks were required.

As GMB's main nation has since been revived however, her influence remains quite strong (at the time of writing in excess of 300) I am willing to make a concession. If GBM can tart to a sizeable level over the next 3 days I will continue to allow her membership within the council. She has served TNP diligently and the council the same in her time, and so this seems the fairest possible option to me at this point in time.

The reality is, the oversight on this matter, really falls to me. Had she still been CTE'd at the time of writing, I would have no recourse but to suspend her membership of the Council. That is not the case and the error in not spotting this, was mine. And thus I offer my best practice in fairness as a solution, the consequences of which I will shoulder in the longer term and not the council nor GBM.

I trust this is likely to turn a few heads, but this seems to me to be the best practice in these circumstances and I will be notifying GBM accordingly.

[me]

--redacted--

...edit: taking a quick check to see if citizens can post in the SC area. Apologies if they can't and this post will be removed.

and....no they can't. They can read, but not reply. My apologies.

punk d:

You are saying that had you noticed she would have been removed, but because you didn't you'll keep her in the SC. I'm not a fan of this approach b/c next time you may happen to notice earlier and say the offender revives their nation in 18 hours but you noticed in our 12 and removed them. That is not particularly fair.

I doubt anyone would not vote GBM back into the SC (pending eligibility) but I think this result is not the most fair nor is it likely to be repeatable in similar circumstances in the future.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is this;

The error in not spotting this in time, was mine. Had I spotted it at the right moment, yes GBM would have been removed from the SC as essentially she could no longer fulfill her role within the council.

HOWEVER at this moment in time GBM's endotarting is in line with setting her back on track, and her influence remains high enough to essentially negate any negative impact that could have resulted from this. So her removal is only to be reinstated is pointless. I don't believe in red tape for the sake of red tape.

As chair of the SC, I have discretion as well as the sanity clause codified into TNP law to issue warnings to members of the SC and to allow them adequate time to rectify any issue. This is the method I'm choosing to employ here. I have given her a reasonable time period of which I'm confident she will begin to regain what has been lost and from that point forward lessons have been learnt to prevent a repeat of this issue.

While I'm aware that this decision is causing some murmuring both within the SC and without, I'd rather do what seemed right to me, and be disliked for it, than do what is right per everyone else's views and dislike myself for it.

I'll tender my resignation sooner than I will compromise on what I deem to be the correct course of action.

If I may make a comment as co-author of the security council law?

I don't believe even the worst enemies of TNP want to see GBM removed from the SC.

When Comrade Eluvatar dropped WA to take part in a liberation with the abhorred United Defenders League, he made every effort to regain his endorsements, partially recouped in the first 12 hours of Zemnaya Svoboda's return, for the security of The North Pacific.

I do not speak for the North Pacificans, but if that example represents what they expect, I think it's perfectly reasonable for GBM to make every human effort to restore her endorsement count, in the interest of regional security.

The sanity clause off Regional Security Law states that regional security law must be applied in a reasonable manner.

Everything in moderation, including moderation.

Thank you.

This thread has been declassified for public viewing by the Vice Delegate. If you have any questions, please contact the Vice Delegate for more information.