Admission of Alunya to the Security Council

Abacathea

Abacathea

TNPer
As voted on here and discussed here Alunya's application to the Security Council has been approved. I now pass it to the Regional Assembly for vote and ask for a second in order to do so.

Yours,

[me]
 
...What, we don't get to discuss it first? :blink:

For myself, I'm a little unsure about admitting someone to the SC when that person recently resigned from the RA saying that they are unable to follow our laws.
 
I really think we need a discussion first.

I have the same concern as SillyString & DD had the same concern as well. I believe other RA members would like all SC applicants to be members of the regional assembly as well.

I believe some of these concerns can be mitigated by the role that Alunya would play in the sc & their placement at the bottom of the line of succession. But I am still concerned about the extent to which our laws could be ignored.
 
I share the concern, and would welcome a debating period.

Alunya has publicly stated that they disagree with our laws, and resigned from the RA on principle. I respect that, but do not feel that it is right that their admission to the SEcurity Council is just rubber stamped by the assembly.
 
I agree some discussion would be helpful.

I don't know Alunya very well, but I think the requirements for SC membership have been met:

Constitution; Article 6; Clause 1:
1. Any person who meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
Click to expand...
Constitution; Article 7; Clause 6:
6. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly while in office.
Click to expand...
and,

Legal Code:
Section 5.2: Admission

9. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific satisfying the influence requirement and endorsement count requirement may apply to join the Security Council.
10. An application which does not meet the appropriate requirements or ceases to meet them must be rejected.
Click to expand...
Since the Security Council has sent Alunya's application for RA approval, I assume no security risk has been identified. Alunya did resign from the RA because of one controversial Law. Not necessarily a bad thing, as it was done on principle. My only focus is whether or not Alunya can contribute to regional security. She would still have to swear an oath (and uphold it) if approved. :shrug:
 
mcmasterdonia:
I really think we need a discussion first.

I have the same concern as SillyString & DD had the same concern as well. I believe other RA members would like all SC applicants to be members of the regional assembly as well.

I believe some of these concerns can be mitigated by the role that Alunya would play in the sc & their placement at the bottom of the line of succession. But I am still concerned about the extent to which our laws could be ignored.
Click to expand...
Membership in the RA is not required to be on the SC (and there are examples of this).

Cultural Declarations are not legally enforceable and therefore cannot be violated nor can individuals be held accountable for refusing to recognise cultural declarations in the Legal Code as that would constitute a violation of the BOR.

As such, I have no problems with Alunya being on the SC as Alunya will certainly hold the security of the region in primacy.
 
Zyv,

Seeing as a discussion period is being requested can you lengthen the time period involved here? The last two times I followed the same format but in this instance could you oblige perhaps?
 
SillyString:
RA membership isn't required by law, but that doesn't mean the RA can't expect it as a matter of course.
Click to expand...
Of course, but the role of the SC is more of a game-mechanics issue which is hopefully above RP politics. Also, the RA has had no problems in the expectations department when it voted for non-RA members to be on the SC in the past.

Volunteering for service on the SC is indeed asking for a lot from a person. Main, because they put themselves in a position to possibly and rapidly expend their accumulated game influence if called upon to do so. A lot of us (in fact almost all) on the SC have been in the region for years or since the whole new influence system was initiated. Hence, if any one of us had to expend our influence in defence of the region, it means one hell of a sacrifice that would take a long time to repair.

Therefore, I have no issue with RA membership for SC members since the members of the SC seem to always separate IC/RP from their duties involving the SC as a matter of course.
 
There seem to be two threads discussing this. Here is what I posted in the other one :

I have always held the view that the security council defends our constitutional government and laws. I do not see how anyone can say "I am resigning the Regional Assembly in protest at those laws, but I want to join the Security Council to defend them."

Plus, I agree with COE and SillyString's comments in the other thread about the logical inconsistency in the resignation.

IRL, I am a christian. Church, beliefs, values, faith - the whole nine yards. Here I play a game. It does not compromise my beliefs any more that driving my children to bankruptcy every time we play monopoly compromises my beliefs.
 
Flemingovia:
I have always held the view that the security council defends our constitutional government and laws.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your view but:

Article 6; Clause 3 of the Constitution:
3. The Security Council will monitor the region's security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
Click to expand...
The Laws are defended by the AG:

Article 4; Clause 2 of the Constitution:
2. The Attorney General will have discretion to manage the prosecution of all criminal cases brought before the Court, save those outlined below, and will also act as a legal advisor to the Delegate, and the Executive, of The North Pacific upon request.
Click to expand...
and the Court:

Article 5; Clause 1 of the Constitution:
1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
Click to expand...
 
'enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate'

Personally, I am all for having people on the SC that will disregard the offsite government if they gain the Delegacy since the Delegate nation has, in my opinion, the right to do so.

But, if you are openly opposed to the RA then it does seem disingenuous to want acceptance into a body that is designed to enforce the will of it.

EDIT: And Flem, beating your kids down in Monopoly is your right as a parent, regardless of the longterm emotional scars about their self-worth it will likely leave.
 
I do agree with the majority of the public opinion about this.
I also do recognize and admire Alunya's honesty and integrity regarding taking the oath.
However, I do agree that even though our laws do not prohibit a member who is not from the RA to become a security councillor, it doesn't make sense to have someone who does not pledge obedience to a law be a defender of it.

~Tomb
 
I support Alunya's acceptance to the security council because in my view, they are not violating any laws, and their withdrawal from the RA is based on a misunderstanding of the criminal code. I don't doubt Alunya's allegiance to TNP or willingness to faithfully execute the duties of the Security Council. What's more, I think it's been demonstrated that if a potential situation were to arise wherein Alunya was no longer willing to execute the duties of the SC (which I do not foresee happening, but anything is possible), Alunya would have the courtesy to resign before it caused a problem.
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
I do agree with the majority of the public opinion about this.
I also do recognize and admire Alunya's honesty and integrity regarding taking the oath.
However, I do agree that even though our laws do not prohibit a member who is not from the RA to become a security councillor, it doesn't make sense to have someone who does not pledge obedience to a law be a defender of it.

~Tomb
Click to expand...
There are and have been members of the SC who are not members of the RA, nor are they even active on this forum for the most part.

Primarily, the SC is largely an instrument which is intended to protect the region by exploiting several points of game mechanics. It is intended to be above RP and politics, which is exactly the behaviour I have seen from all SC members, current and past when it comes to regional security. Mainly, the SC is purely intended to prevent the 'unlawful' transfer of power of the Delegate Seat by Rogues, Usurpers or others who wish to circumvent the system by force or other coercion.

As a purely mechanical function, an SC member's primary duty, IMHO, is to keep the region secure and do so in a way that is totally independent of one's IC/RP persona or personae.

At risk of sounding like Brigadier Fuddy-Duddy, RHA, Membership in the SC requires a certain level of ethics, morality and integrity that is entirely independent of IC/RP personae. That said, it also requires a particular loyalty to the region that goes above and beyond anything that can be expressed by taking an IC/PR oath. It does not require being a member of the Regional Assembly, and, for that matter, any real or meaningful participation in the game. The latter point is particularly important because it allows, or even requires and individual to act on the SC in a manner that is above petty IC/RP politics and in a disinterested fashion to assure that a disinterested and proper application of the goal of the SC is properly conducted.

What really matters is an individual's RL ethics, morality and ability to conduct business in a disinterested, logical and objective way.

I, for one, trust what I know of a person's RL sense of justice, personal integrity and personal word of Honour to be of infinitely more value than any RP/IC oath as such oaths in the past have been shown to not be worth the paper upon which they are written.

By the same token, should, under the logic of RA Membership, which is not required, should certain existing SC members be removed because they are not in the RA? I would say no.

From all experience, Alunya has shown a most excellent level of RL ethics, sense of morality, sense of loyalty and justice which clearly informs her IC/RP persona in a way that is most admirable and something that should be emulated by everyone. Alunya, and others like Alunya would make outstanding members of the SC precisely because of the fact that they apply certain aspects of their RL ethics, etc.,,, to their IC/RP personae.

My apologies for breaking IC character.
 
As four days has passed since the extension was granted, Alunya's application to the Security Council shall now be voted upon by the RA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top