SC Admission and Oath Amendment

I'd like to propose a minor tweak to the Constitution and Legal Code relating to the SC:

Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution will be amended to read

Once an application has been submitted, the Security Council may nominate that applicant by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may confirm a nominated applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not nominate an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may appoint the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.

Click to expand...

A new clause will be added after clause 2, reading

Nominations remain in effect until revoked by majority vote of the Security Council.

Click to expand...

Section 4.1, Clause 2 of the Legal Code will be amended to read

All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of their election, as certified by the Election Commissioner; appointment, as publicly announced; or confirmation, as verified by a member of the Speaker's Office. The taking of the Oath constitutes assumption of the office. Failure to post the oath within the allotted time will result in the office being considered vacant, to be filled in accordance with all laws governing elections, appointments, or confirmations, as is appropriate for the office in question.

Click to expand...

No part of this bill will take effect unless all of it takes effect.

Click to expand...

These changes do two things. First, the amendment to the constitution lowers the obstacle to adding members back to the SC who have been removed for inactivity, or who have resigned, or who have failed to post their oath in time. Any member who leaves it will continue to have a standing nomination, and can thus be readded to the SC by a simple RA vote without needing to reapply from scratch. I think this also makes sense from a security perspective - once the SC has voted to let someone in, future votes on the same applicant presumably will remain the same unless some new information comes to light. Establishing standing nominations lets the SC avoid needless bureaucracy while still being able to react to revoke someone's nomination if that's necessary.

Second, it clarifies the language in the Legal Code to properly include SC members in the oath timetable. The current language specifies only appointment and election, and properly speaking, SC members are neither - they are admitted. Changing the language to specify that the RA confirms applicants, and then adding that word to the oath law, closes that potential loophole. It also creates language for any future confirmation procedures - people have raised at varying times the idea of having appointments and confirmation votes for ministers, justices, and other roles. Should we decide to go in that direction, this change will already be in place to accommodate it.

The specific changes are in blue:

I brought this up to the SC before proposing it here, and you can read that discussion here if you're curious.

Sensible enough

I support this; however I believe that you cannot amend multiple documents in one proposal, unless the Speaker gives special permission. I know I'm being nit-picky, but I believe the Standing Procedures should be honored. Unless, of course, you have already attained Madam Speaker Bootsie's permission?

Bootsie is free to say no if she deems it necessary. I have amended the standard omnibus rider into my bill, though.

I believe SillyString is well aware of the Standing Procedures. I believe she's also aware of my style of leadership. Being both Vice Delegate and Chair of the Security Council, SillyString is probably the most qualified to rewrite these laws. Therefore, I grant permission to use multiple documents in one bill. (And you used the rider, r3n would be proud )

I want to read this and I will but right now I have a very short attention span, may I trouble you to answer me if this were to pass how would this affect future peoples from seeking to be part of the Security Council?

It is my understanding that if people currently meet the influence and endorsement requirements they petion the SC by saying I am nation X with a SPDR/Influence Level of X with X number of endorsements and I petition to be admitted to the Security Council.

The SC then discusses the application and if no one raises issues then typically the applicant is rubber stamped and it then goes to the RA where a vote is held to accept the admittance or not.

I am okay with how the current process works.

I did skim this bill and read someting about being nominated to the SC...so how will these new potential changes change the way SC applications are currently done today?

There would be no change for new applicants. I encourage you to read the bill.

I support this. Currently, there is a murkiness surrounding SC member oath-taking, since ALL government officials are required to take the oath within a certain period of time following appointment or election, and while SC members are definitely government officials, they are neither appointed nor elected. This clarifies that there are government officials who are neither appointed nor elected, and that those officials are required to take the oath. It also sets up legal architecture to provide for other officials in the future to be confirmed instead of appointed or elected, should the RA choose to change the selection process for those officials.

In addition, if an SC member is removed from office for not logging in, they would still be an "approved applicant" by the SC, and thus would not need to go through the nomination process again - they could simply be confirmed by the RA. Recent events have demonstrated clearly that we need to streamline the process for former SC members to rejoin the SC, and this bill is definitely a step in the right direction.

I don't know much about TNP Law, but this seems fine.

I think it's important that we clarify when SC members are required to take the oath of office. Currently, the vote to admit me to the SC ended two days ago, and it's obvious that the RA voted to admit me. The speaker has not yet posted the results of that vote. However, neither that vote nor the forthcoming announcement from the Speaker constitutes an appointment or an election. Am I required to post my oath in the next five days (seven days from the end of the vote)? Or does it need to be seven days from when the speaker posts the announcement? If the speaker doesn't post in the next five days, what happens?

Setting up a third route to oath-posting, confirmation, is essential to clarify the process for becoming an SC member.

I believe and have already suggested a much simpler solution to the remedy to inactivity removals from the Security Council.

One should keep in mind that in the original contemplation of the SC's function, it was to operate in a manner so those residents of the region who met the influence and endorsement criteria did not have to involve themselves with the rest of the government on a day to day basis.

The essential function of the SC is performed in game and not on the forums, per se, and that is where requiring forum log-ins for SC members overly complicated things and is an unnecessary additional requirement that can easily be remeditated:

As in other recent legislation, SillyString and General COE has chosen to address a simple problem with highly complex legislation that may have unintended consequences that go far beyond the problem at hand. In this case, the complex legislation to add the definition of "government officials" a year or two ago had the unintended consequence of creating the current issue. So I say again, K-I-S-S.

Here's what I proposed in the Security Council. Silly String took the position that the R.A> would never go for it. But from my observations in the past couple of years, what SS is really saying that it does not meet the agenda that SS and COE have.

This is what I posted in the SC a few weeks ago in response to SS's original proposal, which is already that what was shown to the SC at the time. It has only two, count them, two changes, that are necessary to allow the suspension of SC members who fall out of compliance with the activity requirements, and is even simplier than the process SS has proposed in this bill to the RA.

The proposal includes one change in the Constitution, and one change in the Regional Security Law:

1. This Act may be cited as the "Security Council Amendments Act of 2015."

2. That a new Clause 5 be added to Article 6 of the Constitution to read:

5. With respect to the Security Council, the Regional Assembly may establish by law such exceptions deemed appropriate to any general provisions of this Constitution or other laws.

Click to expand...

3. That Clause 14 of Section 5.3 of the Legal Code be amended to read:

14. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the citizenship requirements of Section 6.1, or the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will reinstate them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's it. Short, sweet, and simple, and it does the job that is necessary to fix the problem.

A new clause will be added after clause 2, reading

Quote:

Nominations remain in effect until revoked by majority vote of the Security Council.

Click to expand...

i don't think this is needed as RA already has the power to recall SC members or reject SC application.
giving SC the power to revoke nomination can be used to delay application to SC and misuse of SC .

Pasargad, currently, when the SC approves an applicant, that only stays in effect as long as the SC member stays in the SC. If they are removed or resign, they have to reapply to the SC to be readmitted and go through the whole process again. The point of the clause you quoted is to all folks who were removed from the SC to bypass the SC approval process and go straight to the RA vote.

Grosseschnauzer:

I believe and have already suggested a much simpler solution to the remedy to inactivity removals from the Security Council.

One should keep in mind that in the original contemplation of the SC's function, it was to operate in a manner so those residents of the region who met the influence and endorsement criteria did not have to involve themselves with the rest of the government on a day to day basis.

The essential function of the SC is performed in game and not on the forums, per se, and that is where requiring forum log-ins for SC members overly complicated things and is an unnecessary additional requirement that can easily be remeditated:

As in other recent legislation, SillyString and General COE has chosen to address a simple problem with highly complex legislation that may have unintended consequences that go far beyond the problem at hand. In this case, the complex legislation to add the definition of "government officials" a year or two ago had the unintended consequence of creating the current issue. So I say again, K-I-S-S.

Here's what I proposed in the Security Council. Silly String took the position that the R.A> would never go for it. But from my observations in the past couple of years, what SS is really saying that it does not meet the agenda that SS and COE have.

This is what I posted in the SC a few weeks ago in response to SS's original proposal, which is already that what was shown to the SC at the time. It has only two, count them, two changes, that are necessary to allow the suspension of SC members who fall out of compliance with the activity requirements, and is even simplier than the process SS has proposed in this bill to the RA.

The proposal includes one change in the Constitution, and one change in the Regional Security Law:

1. This Act may be cited as the "Security Council Amendments Act of 2015."

2. That a new Clause 5 be added to Article 6 of the Constitution to read:

5. With respect to the Security Council, the Regional Assembly may establish by law such exceptions deemed appropriate to any general provisions of this Constitution or other laws.

Click to expand...

3. That Clause 14 of Section 5.3 of the Legal Code be amended to read:

14. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the citizenship requirements of Section 6.1, or the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will reinstate them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's it. Short, sweet, and simple, and it does the job that is necessary to fix the problem.

Click to expand...

I think you are reading something into this that simply isn't there. To wit:

One should keep in mind that in the original contemplation of the SC's function, it was to operate in a manner so those residents of the region who met the influence and endorsement criteria did not have to involve themselves with the rest of the government on a day to day basis.

The essential function of the SC is performed in game and not on the forums, per se, and that is where requiring forum log-ins for SC members overly complicated things and is an unnecessary additional requirement that can easily be remeditated:

Click to expand...

Certainly SC members are permitted to not involve themselves with nor concern themselves with the rest of the government on a daily basis.

As for requiring SC members to log into the forum, I support that idea entirely, mainly because of the fact that it would be really nice for SC members to actually pay attention to what is going on, if not in the government itself, but in the SC itself.


To illustrate my point, imagine the potential mayhem that could have occurred when McMasterdonia resigned the Delegacy in the event that:

1. I wasn't paying attention to what was going on in the SC by not logging into the forum

2. If I had been willy-nilly about attending my nation on a daily basis

3. If I hadn't logged into my nation for a week or so and not paid attention to what was going on in the forum, specifically in the SC section.


At least on WA Delegate's vote would have gone unattended to as a result of the acting Delegate not being able to get me to do my specific duty in that event. Not to mention the fact that had I not been paying attention to my specific duties as an SC member, anyone with half a brain and enough gonads to try it could have possibly couped the region by taking advantage of an in-game Delegate not having his wits about him.


And, I take exception at the tone and nature of your comment:

Here's what I proposed in the Security Council. Silly String took the position that the R.A> would never go for it. But from my observations in the past couple of years, what SS is really saying that it does not meet the agenda that SS and COE have.

(My added emphasis)

Click to expand...

And what agenda might that be? Please enlighten us all about that.

Believe me when I say that I have had my gripes with SS and COE in the past, but that doesn't lead me to believe in the least that they have any kind of agenda other than to resolve some practical issues involving some of the unnecessary goofiness involving re-admittance to the SC of members that for one odd reason or another let their requirements slip.

As a personal preference, I think that SC members should be attentive to at least the SC threads on the forum and should regularly log in to remain in contact with what is going on. To allow otherwise is to potentially turn over the security of our region to the whim of people who aren't paying sufficient attention in at least a minimal way to what is going on.

Fewer rules often do not amount to keeping things simple if keeping things simple can potentially throw a spanner into the works.

The SC system we have in place worked like a machine and went off without a hiccough. Smoothe as a baby's arse. This SC admission and Oath Amendment will not only serve to keep the baby's arse smooth, but also to assure that there are no unwanted cases of diaper rash.

As such, I support this amendment.

Grosseschnauzer:

5. With respect to the Security Council, the Regional Assembly may establish by law such exceptions deemed appropriate to any general provisions of this Constitution or other laws.

Click to expand...

This is a far superior solution to this mess.

Grosseschnauzer:

14. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the citizenship requirements of Section 6.1, or the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will reinstate them.

Click to expand...

The loophole here could be:

Article 7: Clause 6 of the Constitution:

6. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain citizenship while in office.

Click to expand...

Pasargad:

i don't think this is needed as RA already has the power to recall SC members or reject SC application. giving SC the power to revoke nomination can be used to delay application to SC and misuse of SC.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It should also be a 2/3 majority to revoke. Regardless, I still wouldn't support this if that was added. Definite Nay.

Holy crap. Did I just read Romanoffia agreeing with the Eluimmati/IRCabal...its a iRomanatti merger!

Spoiler alert: I'm kidding!

Well said, Roman! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day... ;-)

Roman, I wholeheartedly agree with you!

As for Grosse's repetition of his earlier complaints, I maintain my position in full. I do not in any way support SC members being exempted from the general activity requirements all government officials are subject to, and I will not be adopting his proposal until and unless I am convinced that it is indeed a good idea.

SC membership is not a cushy chair to sit on and pop your head in once in a while and hope the LoS hasn't fallen to you in the meantime. It's a serious, constant responsibility. If an SC member cannot log in to the forum regularly (once every two weeks) and is unresponsive when attempts are made to contact them in other ways, they are a security liability and not an asset.

Given that revoking a nomination does not prevent someone from rejoing the SC (they can still go directly to the RA), nor does it remove an existing member from the SC, and given that under the current system a prior member would not be able to rejoin the SC if a simple majority opposed it, I don't see 2/3 as called for. This bill is changing terms and skipping extraneous steps, not changing the underlying process.

Silly String:

I do not in any way support SC members being exempted from the general activity requirements all government officials are subject to

Click to expand...

Fair enough. So, does that mean you are also opposed to:

Article 7: Clause 6 of the Constitution:

6. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain citizenship while in office.

Click to expand...

While not the same as the activity requirement, it is still an exception.
At any rate, I maintain my opposition to this. Imo, the vacancy provision (as it pertains to the SC), is the only issue that need be addressed (if at all). Suspension should have been the action taken, not removal.

Silly String:

If an SC member cannot log in to the forum regularly (once every two weeks) and is unresponsive when attempts are made to contact them in other ways, they are a security liability and not an asset

Click to expand...

Yes, removing them greatly enhances TNP security.

falapatorius:

Yes, removing them greatly enhances TNP security.

Click to expand...

Yes, it absolutely does. Or can you really not imagine the chaos that would have occurred had Roman not been active when he got the delegacy? Even if he had been gone for a couple of days we would have faced some serious issues.

Now imagine if he'd been gone for a couple of weeks. Completely inactive SC members are a liability, not an asset.

If we instead switch to suspending them, where do we draw the line? They lose their endorsements and SPDR - suspended. They go inactive and stop posting - suspended? For how long? What if they simply never log back into the forum again, and stop responding to TGs, but continue to log in to their nation and tart? How long do we tolerate that? What if they resign WA? Suspended? What if their nation ceases to exist? Suspended? Or moves to another region? Still suspended? What if they do these things while on suspension? Is there a maximum time that we'll tolerate someone being suspended before they get removed or recalled? From what I can tell, Grosse thinks that SC members should never be removed - and I think that's preposterous.

Nope, I am not a fan of expanding suspension. It's an appropriate provision for members who are still active and around but not quite active enough to keep their endorsements and SPDR high enough, but it's not at all appropriate for people who disappear and are unresponsive.

Silly String:

Yes, it absolutely does. Or can you really not imagine the chaos that would have occurred had Roman not been active when he got the delegacy? Even if he had been gone for a couple of days we would have faced some serious issues.

Click to expand...

Oh come on.. that's a bit much. Really, if your endo count had been where it should have been (2nd most), there'd be no problem.

So what if Roman was away a couple of days when McM resigned? McM was away for 8 days as Delegate.. did these 'serious issues' crop up? Your endo count would have eventually surpassed Roman's, (it did) and you'd be Acting Delegate (which you are supposed to be as VD).

I highly doubt McM would have resigned if there hadn't been a plan of action, or if there was no one around to assume the Delegacy. Even if that were the case, Clause 11 of the BOR could be invoked. A delegate resignation is what I'd call an actual emergency.

Falapatorius, is your argument really that inactive SC members are not a liability because we never need them anyway? I think you seriously misunderstand the function of the SC.

falapatorius:

Silly String:

Yes, it absolutely does. Or can you really not imagine the chaos that would have occurred had Roman not been active when he got the delegacy? Even if he had been gone for a couple of days we would have faced some serious issues.

Click to expand...

Oh come on.. that's a bit much. Really, if your endo count had been where it should have been (2nd most), there'd be no problem.

Click to expand...

Had my endorsements been higher, I would have been able to assume the delegacy immediately. They were, however, not higher, despite serious efforts to tart. You may notice Tomb is having similar troubles now. It's actually difficult and takes a fair bit of time to gain 500 endorsements. I invite you to try it sometime.

[/quote]So what if Roman was away a couple of days when McM resigned? McM was away for 8 days as Delegate.. did these 'serious issues' crop up? Your endo count would have eventually surpassed Roman's, (it did) and you'd be Acting Delegate (which you are supposed to be as VD).[/quote]

There are a number of differences, including:

1) McM continued to log into his nation semi-regularly, which is sufficient to dissuade most would-be security threats, who can't be sure if the delegate is really inactive or just pretending to be. Transitions between delegates, however, have traditionally been some of the highest threat-counts. You weren't in TNP for this, but after Eluvatar was recalled from the delegacy a hard unendorsement campaign was begun against Tim (VD at the time) to keep him from taking the delegacy. It worked - he never got it. And unendo campaigns can get much, much more damaging when the person who is in the delegacy isn't around to ban the offenders and help spread the word. There are still plenty of people who would love to take any opportunity to coup TNP.

2) Entering a transition and calling upon our friends and allies left us in a very different place, diplomatically speaking, than being in a stable delegacy. For example, had Romanoffia not logged in and changed his newly-powerful delegate vote from in favor of the SC resolution at vote to opposing it, that vote would have put us in very grave risk of alienating a number of regions who contributed at least five dozen troops to help us out, and with whom we cooperate militarily and diplomatically on a regular basis.

I highly doubt McM would have resigned if there hadn't been a plan of action, or if there was no one around to assume the Delegacy.

Click to expand...

I mean, you can feel free to doubt anything you like, but the fact of the matter is that McM gave nobody any advance warning of his plans, and up until Roman actually logged in there was no guarantee that it wouldn't be one of those weekends where he doesn't log in at all. We're very lucky that it wasn't.

I still maintain that the appropriate remedy for SC inactivity issues is suspension and not a new round of voting in the R.A.

Unless there's a way to prevent such a process from being used as a political weapon, even when the SC member is question has done nothing to warrant removal which I suspect is at the bottom of this proposal as it is currently written, it would be a step backwards and not forward. The suspension/reinstatement method is a much more effective and simplier mechanism and avoids the risk of political intrigue.

This proposal has nothing at all to do with removing a member from the SC.

Edit: Any member. Ever. The path to removal is and will remain recall by the RA.

COE:

Falapatorius, is your argument really that inactive SC members are not a liability because we never need them anyway? I think you seriously misunderstand the function of the SC.

Click to expand...

Obviously not. I'd rather have an inactive SC, than a depleted SC. This proposal doesn't address the vacancy provision. That's the problem here. That can still be used to remove SC members. This proposal just makes it easier for them to come back. Like it was difficult to re-apply. Oh, and adds a clause that allows the SC to revoke a standing nomination if necessary.

Silly String:

I mean, you can feel free to doubt anything you like, but the fact of the matter is that McM gave nobody any advance warning of his plans, and up until Roman actually logged in there was no guarantee that it wouldn't be one of those weekends where he doesn't log in at all. We're very lucky that it wasn't.

Click to expand...

I meant that I think it doubtful McM didn't carefully consider the decision to resign. Why all the fear mongering? Is TNP that weak and poorly governed? Is Romanoffia our savior? My god..

Silly String:

For example, had Romanoffia not logged in and changed his newly-powerful delegate vote from in favor of the SC resolution at vote to opposing it, that vote would have put us in very grave risk of alienating a number of regions who contributed at least five dozen troops to help us out, and with whom we cooperate militarily and diplomatically on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

So they wouldn't understand what happened and why? So a WA vote would put treaties at risk? That's a leap. Oh wait, TNP is the biggest vote stacker in the WA. I get it now. I laughed that Roman had to change his vote.

Silly String:

This proposal has nothing at all to do with removing a member from the SC.
Edit: Any member. Ever. The path to removal is and will remain recall by the RA.

Click to expand...

??? I think you're well aware of the vacancy provision. As well as what options the VD has for removal of a member.

Grosseschnauzer:

Unless there's a way to prevent such a process from being used as a political weapon, even when the SC member is question has done nothing to warrant removal which I suspect is at the bottom of this proposal as it is currently written, it would be a step backwards and not forward.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to come around to this point of view.

Still against this proposal.

Silly String:

This proposal has nothing at all to do with removing a member from the SC.
Edit: Any member. Ever. The path to removal is and will remain recall by the RA.

Click to expand...

??? I think you're well aware of the vacancy provision. As well as what options the VD has for removal of a member.[/quote]

Indeed I am. And this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the vacancy provision, which as a side note cannot be used ever against an active SC member, and which it is illegal to apply in a biased fashion. If there's anyone I would have bent the rules for, it would have been GBM.

This appears to be going in circles, so I motion to vote.

falapatorius:

"I laughed that Roman had to change his vote."

Click to expand...

Why would that make you laugh?

I didn't have to change my vote, I did so because it was my duty to do so and not doing so would have been an unacceptable breach of trust on my part. For me to do otherwise would have been unethical, improper and not in my general nature.

Romanoffia:

I didn't have to change my vote, I did so because it was my duty to do so and not doing so would have been an unacceptable breach of trust on my part. For me to do otherwise would have been unethical, improper and not in my general nature.

Click to expand...

Explain that to me. You decided to vote a particular way as a TNP nation. But upon becoming Acting Delegate, you felt compelled to change your vote. Fine.. you didn't want to make waves. But to claim it was duty is ridiculous. Point me to any language in any treaty that compels TNP to vote as it allies do in regard to WA resolutions.

As per:

WA voting policy:

5) The delegate's vote on each resolution will be determined by the running tally of the corresponding forum thread, and will be updated as the tally changes and as frequently as practically possible while not diminishing the regional voting influence.

Click to expand...

This is a WA voting policy implemented by r3n. You weren't obligated by Law to change your vote. To wit:

Section 6.6:Legal Code:

34. The Delegate may vote on all World Assembly (WA) resolutions as they see fit, using any method to determine their vote as they decide.

Click to expand...

You weren't being dutiful, or ethical. You were just being a caretaker Delegate. Which is fine, but don't claim the moral high ground in the process.

With a motion to vote, this Bill is now in Formal Debate, which will last five days.

falapatorius:

As per:

WA voting policy:

5) The delegate's vote on each resolution will be determined by the running tally of the corresponding forum thread, and will be updated as the tally changes and as frequently as practically possible while not diminishing the regional voting influence.

Click to expand...

This is a WA voting policy implemented by r3n. You weren't obligated by Law to change your vote. To wit:

Click to expand...

This is not the voting policy mcm adopted, for one thing.

For another, the running tally on the TNP forum was strongly against.

For a third, even if it had been in favor, security and IR concerns would have overriden the vote. TNI is a friendly region, a powerful region, a region we have cooperated with on military and diplomatic endeavors dozens of times. Not being legally bound to do something, either by law or by treaty, doesn't mean there are no consequences for failing to act.

Would they have understood? Probably. Would they have retaliated? Probably not. Would it have damaged our reputation? Yes. Would it have given them cause for hesitation in the future? Also yes. One of the delegate's jobs is protecting TNP's reputation and the strength of our relations with other regions. Roman can absolutely claim a moral high ground for putting TNP's interests above his private opinion.

So explain to me again..why romanoffia changing his vote during the one day he was delegate. (Damn I missed it. Anyone have a screen capture of that.) Have anything at all to do with amending language Re: Security Council admittance?

PaulWallLibertarian42:

So explain to me again..why romanoffia changing his vote during the one day he was delegate. (Damn I missed it. Anyone have a screen capture of that.) Have anything at all to do with amending language Re: Security Council admittance?

Click to expand...

Because the theory is the proposed change in language and procedure by SS would encourage an active SC while the argument is that the opposing view of a suspension system coupled with a removal of forum activity requirements would strongly benefit a nonactive or lackadaisical SC. And so it tied into if the SC member was not as active on the forum or on NS that the simple fact he had not changed his vote and changed the delegate vote that it could have damaged future relations and cooperation with allied regions coupled with damaging TNP's reputation.

falapatorius:

Romanoffia:

I didn't have to change my vote, I did so because it was my duty to do so and not doing so would have been an unacceptable breach of trust on my part. For me to do otherwise would have been unethical, improper and not in my general nature.

Click to expand...

Explain that to me. You decided to vote a particular way as a TNP nation. But upon becoming Acting Delegate, you felt compelled to change your vote. Fine.. you didn't want to make waves. But to claim it was duty is ridiculous. Point me to any language in any treaty that compels TNP to vote as it allies do in regard to WA resolutions.

As per:

WA voting policy:

5) The delegate's vote on each resolution will be determined by the running tally of the corresponding forum thread, and will be updated as the tally changes and as frequently as practically possible while not diminishing the regional voting influence.

Click to expand...

This is a WA voting policy implemented by r3n. You weren't obligated by Law to change your vote. To wit:

Section 6.6:Legal Code:

34. The Delegate may vote on all World Assembly (WA) resolutions as they see fit, using any method to determine their vote as they decide.

Click to expand...

You weren't being dutiful, or ethical. You were just being a caretaker Delegate. Which is fine, but don't claim the moral high ground in the process.

Click to expand...

Remember, I didn't have to vote the way the Acting Delegate directed me to vote as I noted before. I was also entirely entitled to change my vote for any reason I decided to change it.

The moral high ground is that as a member of the Security Council having been put in the position of in-game Delegate, and Acting Vice Delegate at the same time, it was expected of me to do as lawfully directed by the Acting Delegate and as a member of the Security Council.

As for the issue of "Duty", the term can be defined as a requirement to perform acts that one may not want to do, but chooses to do so either because one is obligated to do so or one finds value in doing so. I found value in changing my vote and doing so because I am trusted to do so and I value the trust that was invested in me by McM when he resigned the Delegacy knowing fully that in mechanical terms the Delegacy would devolve to me. I find value in being trusted that way. I also believe in exchanging value for value and therefore I changed my vote. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is quite objectivist of me.

Under the way the SC functions, to vote contrary to the way the Acting Delegate directs me to vote would be unethical and an act of rogue-ism. My objective in doing so was to preserve continuity of authority in a manner that is not contrary to the Laws and Constitution of TNP.

And, I handle damned if you do, damned if you don't situations very well.

And, see the quote below:

Lord Lore:

PaulWallLibertarian42:

So explain to me again..why romanoffia changing his vote during the one day he was delegate. (Damn I missed it. Anyone have a screen capture of that.) Have anything at all to do with amending language Re: Security Council admittance?

Click to expand...

Because the theory is the proposed change in language and procedure by SS would encourage an active SC while the argument is that the opposing view of a suspension system coupled with a removal of forum activity requirements would strongly benefit a nonactive or lackadaisical SC. And so it tied into if the SC member was not as active on the forum or on NS that the simple fact he had not changed his vote and changed the delegate vote that it could have damaged future relations and cooperation with allied regions coupled with damaging TNP's reputation.

Click to expand...

SillyString:

This proposal has nothing at all to do with removing a member from the SC.

Edit: Any member. Ever. The path to removal is and will remain recall by the RA.

Click to expand...

Under this proposal, your statement is untrue.

An SC member removed for inactivity, and who is denied readmission to the RA under the proposed procedure therefore in the same position as a removed member, except it takes fewer votes to deny the seat than to recall, and the denial could be based on any number of grounds not specified in the Regional Security Law.

It is a dangerous procedure that treatens to overly politicize a process than does noot even need to go this route.

If you consider an inactive SC member who, under what I propose is suspended and reinstated by law without a vote of the RA being involved, then use the recall provision. But as written now, the proposal can politically accomplish that end with a bare pluarlity of RA votes, and not the super-majority required for recall. That is one reason why this procedure is deeply flawed.

This is an example of what I mentioned earlier, that this is the sort of "unitended" consequences, that I suspect in this instance is intended, but not being acknowledged and admitted to.

Grosse, everything you're saying is already true under current law. My proposal has nothing to do with that being the case. A member removed for inactivity now can fail to rejoin if they don't get sufficient approval from the RA. I'm okay with this. I'm not creating it, and I'm not removing it.

And I don't have a problem at all with the RA deciding not to vote someone into the SC, for any reasons it wants, whether it's thinking they're a possible threat or not liking their inactivity or simply not liking their attitude. That's its prerogative.

Grosseschnauzer:

But as written now, the proposal can politically accomplish that end with a bare pluarlity of RA votes, and not the super-majority required for recall. That is one reason why this procedure is deeply flawed.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If it takes a 2/3 majority for recall/removal:

Section 5.3: Regional Security Law: Enforcement: Legal Code:

15. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a member poses a security risk to The North Pacific and request approval from the Regional Assembly to remove the member from the Council.
16. The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will submit the request to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval will require a two-thirds majority.

Click to expand...

It should be a 2/3 majority to revoke a nomination. (bolding mine)

@Roman.. Don't get me wrong, I understand why you changed your WA vote.

Romanoffia:

I value the trust that was invested in me by McM when he resigned the Delegacy knowing fully that in mechanical terms the Delegacy would devolve to me.

Click to expand...

Yes. McM wouldn't leave us in a lurch.

You know, I'd rather see it be harder to admit a candidate than remove one.

The Security Council is a privilege, not a right, and those who are appointed to it by the Regional Assembly should strive to hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct and activity. If they can't meet those standards, the RA should be able to easily remove them by a simple majority, not a 2/3 vote.

falapatorius:

Agreed. If it takes a 2/3 majority for recall/removal...It should be a 2/3 majority to revoke a nomination.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. Revoking a nomination does not remove someone's membership, and revoking a nomination does not stop someone from rejoining. All it does is mean that they have to apply directly to the SC again if they are removed, and if the SC chooses not to nominate them, the RA still can.

So no, requiring 2/3 doen't make sense.

Formal Debate has ended on this bill. This will go to vote on 3/17 by 11:00 PM CDT, as written at the time of this post. The bill may not be edited further.