Nessuno and Kialga's SC Applications

SillyString

SillyString

TNPer
-
-
Nessuno and Kialga have been nominated to join the Security Council by majority vote. Nessuno received a vote of 2-1-4 in favor, and Kialga received a vote of 4-3-1 in favor. I now bring this to the RA to discuss and vote.

I apologize for the delay - during my time as acting delegate, I was legally unable to bring this to the RA.
 
While I do think that Kialga should go to vote I do not necessarily think the same about Nessuno. There is not really enough information out there about Nessuno, so little in fact that more than half of all votes in the SC on Nessuno were abstains.

I think when less than a third of SC members actually vote yes or no and only 2/7 votes actually vote Aye its a little dubious.
 
I have reservations about both applications, hence my "no" vote in the Security Council as to both. Nessuno is an unknown, and I have no basis to believe that he meets the qualities necessary to function as is needed as a member of the Security Council.

Based upon my observations of Kialga's work ethic, or lack thereof, while serving on the Court, I have serious reservations based upon that experience to believe that he meets the qualities necessary to function as is needed as a member of the Security Council.

I believe the proof is in the private discussion threads in the deliberations of the Court in that period, especially the time stamps of the postings. I do not believe that he has earned the level of trust and responsibility to the region that is necessary to serve on the Security Council.

I will be voting "nay" as to both in the R.A.
 
Lord Lore: I have interacted very little with Nessuno, and don't know them very well. I was originally inclined to vote Nay for this reason, but I chose to abstain instead because they got GBM's support (and her opinion counts for a great deal in my book).
 
I am a little concerned at the votes for the Nessuno, and I'm not prepared to "give the benefit of the doubt". I would prefer to wait and seek him to reapply in a few months time and have his application judged by more members of the Council.

In terms of Kialga though, I am happy to offer my support. He and I have worked together a fair bit, and he is a conscientious and deeply devoted person to projects he focuses on.

Whilst I admit that he has a lot to learn about how things can work in NationStates, he has freely devoted his time to The North Pacific and is endeavouring to learn about how he can aid this region in its various tasks, including recently taking a Team Leader role with our embassy in Taijitu as part of the on-going reforms of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as part of that will serve as a mentor to trainee diplomats.
 
I strongly support the addition of both candidates.

Kialga has proven himself worthy of the position through his work as justice and various positions in the Executive Staff.

I've also known Nessie for a while now, and he has done a good amount of work as Deputy Minister of Education during his time in that position. He's also an active participant in the Ministry of Culture.

So I support both applications.

~ Tomb
 
I think SC membership is sometimes seen now as "a hoop i have to jump through to be allowed to keep endotarting."

I see SC membership as the supreme expression of regional trust. These are the people we can absolutely rely on not to screw us over. They are the people we know will step up to the mark if we get a rogue delegacy.

Do I feel that way about Kialga and Nessuno? No. I even had to look up Nessuno's name because I was not sure what they were called.
 
Lord Lore:
I would like to hear from Democratic Donkeys and GBM on why they voted Aye on Nessuno's application.
Click to expand...
I'll admit I am trying to envision the SC in a different way than when I first joined. Nessuno is an active participant on the RMB, and I like that presence gameside because I feel it is of growing importance due to the way the WADP has been a success. I am trying to change to a more inclusive mindset in considering potential applicants. RMB activity is necessary and vital, forum side participation is also nice.
 
I can think of quite a few gregarious rogue Delegates in the past. I'm not sure regional security should be measured in RMB activity.
 
All members of the SC are potential delegates though, and I think we should consider their eligibility in light of that. Any member of the SC, in order to completely fulfill their duties, needs to be ready and able to step into the position of delegate.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
All members of the SC are potential delegates though, and I think we should consider their eligibility in light of that. Any member of the SC, in order to completely fulfill their duties, needs to be ready and able to step into the position of delegate.
Click to expand...
Despite recent evidence to the contrary most delegacy transfers have been without incident and without the involvement of the Security Council. It is hard to think of any other times when the SC has been called to fulfill the role of delegate. Not to say it couldn't happen, but it is incredibly unlikely we would find ourselves in a situation where it would not be the Vice Delegate assuming the delegacy. Beyond all of that there is the diffusion of influence amongst more nations because of the WADP, which makes it harder for any one nation to hold sufficient influence to ban or eject high influence nations like those on the SC. (I think currently SillyString would expend a significant amount of influence simply ejecting me).

An SC that has a good membership numbers wise is actually one of the best guarantees against an SC member (or members) going rogue.

Edit: A thought comes to mind, if the assumption of the delegacy is such an integral role of an SC member, then why do we allow nations to continue to be members despite their historically low endorsement counts? There is not a chance in heck that some current SC members would be able to fulfill that role.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Crushing Our Enemies:
All members of the SC are potential delegates though, and I think we should consider their eligibility in light of that. Any member of the SC, in order to completely fulfill their duties, needs to be ready and able to step into the position of delegate.
Click to expand...
Despite recent evidence to the contrary most delegacy transfers have been without incident and without the involvement of the Security Council. It is hard to think of any other times when the SC has been called to fulfill the role of delegate. Not to say it couldn't happen, but it is incredibly unlikely we would find ourselves in a situation where it would not be the Vice Delegate assuming the delegacy.
Click to expand...
The SC's reason to exist is those situations in which an SC member is called on to take the delegacy (and also to prevent those situations from occurring, but it's not good to bet on that). So statistical information about how rare those situations are is irrelevant. When the chips are down, every SC member needs to be ready, and the vast majority of time where it doesn't matter if they're ready is must less important.
Democratic Donkeys:
Beyond all of that there is the diffusion of influence amongst more nations because of the WADP, which makes it harder for any one nation to hold sufficient influence to ban or eject high influence nations like those on the SC. (I think currently SillyString would expend a significant amount of influence simply ejecting me).
Click to expand...
That only means it's more likely that in a coup situation, we might need to rotate the delegacy among the members of the security council to clear the region of threats, and makes it more important that each member is ready.

Democratic Donkeys:
An SC that has a good membership numbers wise is actually one of the best guarantees against an SC member (or members) going rogue.
Click to expand...
This is true, but high influence nations can contribute to that deterrent without being on the SC.

Democratic Donkeys:
Edit: A thought comes to mind, if the assumption of the delegacy is such an integral role of an SC member, then why do we allow nations to continue to be members despite their historically low endorsement counts? There is not a chance in heck that some current SC members would be able to fulfill that role.
Click to expand...
I agree that some SC members may need to step up their game, possibly including myself.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
All members of the SC are potential delegates though, and I think we should consider their eligibility in light of that. Any member of the SC, in order to completely fulfill their duties, needs to be ready and able to step into the position of delegate.
Click to expand...

But all citizens are potential delegates, and all potential delegates are potential couping delegates.
 
My familiarity with Nessie is chiefly through interactions on the OOC. I see him as committed to the community and would trust him to be on the SC.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I agree that some SC members may need to step up their game, possibly including myself.
Click to expand...
This is a subject I have been reflecting on a lot of late (darn tricksy Chair!). I'm not at a definite position yet, but I am leaning towards a philosophical shift in what I view the duty of the SC to be.

The SC's reason to exist is those situations in which an SC member is called on to take the delegacy
Click to expand...
Partially, yes. But I feel the more consistent duty of the SC is monitoring the region and consulting with the Executive on issues of game side security.
That only means it's more likely that in a coup situation, we might need to rotate the delegacy among the members of the security council to clear the region of threats, and makes it more important that each member is ready.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that is the type of situation we would find ourselves in. A coup would most heavily rely on a rogue delegate mostly supported by native nations. That rogue delegate would be the most significant influence drain, nations that entered the region in support of the coup would have negligible amounts of influence, unless you are suggesting a large force of invader WAs would commit their WA nations here for a significant period of time to gain high influence? That would take quite the operational discipline.
This is true, but high influence nations can contribute to that deterrent without being on the SC.
Click to expand...
This is probably the most important question for me: Why not allow these high influence nations to be a part of the regional security apparatus?
 
Until recently, most of the time, members have been elected Delegates and Vice Delegates prior to their election on the Council. I have objected more than once recently to applicants who were at the time incumbent Delegates or Vice Delegates, because that perverts the role of the Security Council to carry out any regional mandate to enforce the constitutional removal of a Delegate. (It is awkward to expect a Delegate who is an S.C. member at the same time to be expected to enforce his own removal from office, and likewise, for a Vice Delegate who is a member of the Council in the ssame role when the removal of the Delegate places the Vice Delegate, at least temporarily as Delegate.)

Having applicants on the Council who really aren't experienced in either the role of Delegate. Vice Delegate. or preferably both, simply does not serve the interests of TNP. The exercise of responsibility of both offices as part of a history that established trustworthiness is of fundamental importance in being accepted for service on the Security Council.

I have serious reservations about both of these applicants even getting past review by the Security Council itself. But it seems to me they're gunshy about not accepting any applicant, no matter how inferior their qualifications, and that is a worrisome trend.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Crushing Our Enemies:
That only means it's more likely that in a coup situation, we might need to rotate the delegacy among the members of the security council to clear the region of threats, and makes it more important that each member is ready.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that is the type of situation we would find ourselves in. A coup would most heavily rely on a rogue delegate mostly supported by native nations. That rogue delegate would be the most significant influence drain, nations that entered the region in support of the coup would have negligible amounts of influence, unless you are suggesting a large force of invader WAs would commit their WA nations here for a significant period of time to gain high influence? That would take quite the operational discipline.
Click to expand...
That's the biggest threat to us, yes - a group of nations with high influence all conspiring together to take and hold the delegacy. Such a group could prove impossible for any single nation (delegate, VD, or SC member) to eject and would then require shifting the delegacy down among members of the line of succession in order to remove the threat.
 
DD:
unless you are suggesting a large force of invader WAs would commit their WA nations here for a significant period of time to gain high influence? That would take quite the operational discipline.
Click to expand...
This is not an impossible scenario imo. As I stated way back when it was being debated, the WADP has the potential of being the tool to accomplish such an end. There are now multiple nations (non SC) with over 300 endos. Most are newcomers that I know nothing about (I'm not an NS veteran either btw). They could be just players having fun with endo-tarting, but they could also be an infiltration force. Alternatively, the easy path to citizenship (ie. voting privileges) could also be problematic. If enough infiltrators are citizens, we could end up having a democratically elected rogue Delegate. Mind you, any elected Delegate can go rogue. Anyway, these are just my musings, and not intended to inflame or doom-say. Just saying.

Grosseschnauzer:
Having applicants on the Council who really aren't experienced in either the role of Delegate. Vice Delegate. or preferably both, simply does not serve the interests of TNP. The exercise of responsibility of both offices as part of a history that established trustworthiness is of fundamental importance in being accepted for service on the Security Council.
Click to expand...
That smacks of exclusivity a bit, but I see your point. It does seem that as soon as someone reaches the requirements for the SC, they apply. I myself have 270 endos and an SPDR of 315, but I won't be applying unless invited to do so.

On topic: While I have no reason not to trust either applicant, I also don't know much about them from an NS standpoint. Abstain for now.
 
falapatorius:
DD:
unless you are suggesting a large force of invader WAs would commit their WA nations here for a significant period of time to gain high influence? That would take quite the operational discipline.
Click to expand...
This is not an impossible scenario imo. As I stated way back when it was being debated, the WADP has the potential of being the tool to accomplish such an end. There are now multiple nations (non SC) with over 300 endos. Most are newcomers that I know nothing about (I'm not an NS veteran either btw). They could be just players having fun with endo-tarting, but they could also be an infiltration force. Alternatively, the easy path to citizenship (ie. voting privileges) could also be problematic. If enough infiltrators are citizens, we could end up having a democratically elected rogue Delegate. Mind you, any elected Delegate can go rogue. Anyway, these are just my musings, and not intended to inflame or doom-say. Just saying.
Click to expand...
My response is to the bolded statement. While the second might be true the first part is extremely false. None of the nations with even down to the 237 endorsement mark are "new" the newest of the bunch is South Isles and The Victorian League which were created almost three months ago. The next tier of newest nation on the list is Mica Land, Ceretis, Nessuno, Plembobria, and my own WA puppets which were created Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov. and Dec. of 2014 respectively. (Note: My original nation in NS is over 2 years old and I have been a citizen of TNP for longer then the lifespan of that puppet).

Almost all nations on the list that are that high actually are over a year old. Like Kialga (3/2014), Great Lionheart (5/2014), Selfgradatude (6/2011), Lionia (11/2011).

2/18 nations with 300+ endorsements and younger then 6 months. 6/18 younger than a year (7 including my puppet). Meaning thats hardly "most" being newcommers. And of the top 20, most are prolific contributers to the RMB, IRC or Forum, and/or Justices, Ministers, or other high ranking government officials. Please check your facts.
 
Lord Lore:
2/18 nations with 300+ endorsements and younger then 6 months. 6/18 younger than a year (7 including my puppet). Meaning thats hardly "most" being newcommers. And of the top 20, most are prolific contributers to the RMB, IRC or Forum, and/or Justices, Ministers, or other high ranking government officials. Please check your facts.
Click to expand...
:eyeroll: Please think before you post. It's a matter of perspective. I've been here a bit longer than Kialga, and I still consider myself a newcomer. Obviously, our definition of newcomer is different. If it helps, I'll amend to 'relative' newcomer.

As to RMB, IRC, and forum activity.. I don't see that as important at all (although at least logging on here should be maintained as required to maintain membership). The current SC (with a few exceptions) is not that active on the RMB or here. I couldn't say about IRC as I don't use it.

Serving as an elected official (Justice) or an appointed one (Minister) doesn't pre-qualify an applicant for the SC. It's a consideration perhaps, although it may not exactly be a positive one in some cases. In particular, concerns were raised about Kialga's ability and work ethic on the bench, and how that would translate to service on the SC. Atm, without de-classified court logs, there's no way of knowing for sure. But it's still a concern to me at least. Hence the abstain.
 
falapatorius:
As to RMB, IRC, and forum activity.. I don't see that as important at all (although at least logging on here should be maintained as required to maintain membership). The current SC (with a few exceptions) is not that active on the RMB or here. I couldn't say about IRC as I don't use it.

Serving as an elected official (Justice) or an appointed one (Minister) doesn't pre-qualify an applicant for the SC. It's a consideration perhaps, although it may not exactly be a positive one in some cases. In particular, concerns were raised about Kialga's ability and work ethic on the bench, and how that would translate to service on the SC. Atm, without de-classified court logs, there's no way of knowing for sure. But it's still a concern to me at least. Hence the abstain.
Click to expand...
This is my last reply on the matter this thread should be used for the discussion of these applications and not on the details about endorsement saturation.

1.) Actually activity is important it tells us that someone is willing to put effort and root into a community.

2.) I never said that it was a pre-qualification I was expressing that a lot of those people you claimed were new got a lot of their endorsements due to being high ranking members of the government.
 
To address these two applications, I would not be voting for either of them. Although I have a feeling I missed the actual voting on both of them in the SC. :P

Personally, given that SC members have to be trusted with high endorsements and potentially having the delegacy (as Roman has had several times recently it seems like). And it's hard to gauge that without having seen them in a position of high endorsements like delegate and vice delegate. Or repeatedly involved in government and trusted with running TNP.

I don't see a huge need for a large number of SC members. Not particularly trying to be exclusive, but this isn't an elected office with term limits, people have to be trusted to stay around and maintain their endos. Perhaps there should be a SC minimum on endos?
 
falapatorius:
There are now multiple nations (non SC) with over 300 endos. Most are newcomers that I know nothing about (I'm not an NS veteran either btw). They could be just players having fun with endo-tarting, but they could also be an infiltration force. Alternatively, the easy path to citizenship (ie. voting privileges) could also be problematic. If enough infiltrators are citizens, we could end up having a democratically elected rogue Delegate. Mind you, any elected Delegate can go rogue. Anyway, these are just my musings, and not intended to inflame or doom-say. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Whoops. Sorry guys, I guess I'm an infiltrator. I work for a lesser-known raider organization called the pinkie pieders.

Darn you Falap for finding me out.
 
plembobria:
falapatorius:
There are now multiple nations (non SC) with over 300 endos. Most are newcomers that I know nothing about (I'm not an NS veteran either btw). They could be just players having fun with endo-tarting, but they could also be an infiltration force. Alternatively, the easy path to citizenship (ie. voting privileges) could also be problematic. If enough infiltrators are citizens, we could end up having a democratically elected rogue Delegate. Mind you, any elected Delegate can go rogue. Anyway, these are just my musings, and not intended to inflame or doom-say. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Whoops. Sorry guys, I guess I'm an infiltrator. I work for a lesser-known raider organization called the pinkie pieders.

Darn you Falap for finding me out.
Click to expand...
For shame.

For shame.
 
Former English Colony:
To address these two applications, I would not be voting for either of them. Although I have a feeling I missed the actual voting on both of them in the SC. :P
Click to expand...
You did. :P

Personally, given that SC members have to be trusted with high endorsements and potentially having the delegacy (as Roman has had several times recently it seems like)
Click to expand...
You mean once? :P

Perhaps there should be a SC minimum on endos?
Click to expand...
There is. :P
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Until recently, most of the time, members have been elected Delegates and Vice Delegates prior to their election on the Council. I have objected more than once recently to applicants who were at the time incumbent Delegates or Vice Delegates, because that perverts the role of the Security Council to carry out any regional mandate to enforce the constitutional removal of a Delegate. (It is awkward to expect a Delegate who is an S.C. member at the same time to be expected to enforce his own removal from office, and likewise, for a Vice Delegate who is a member of the Council in the ssame role when the removal of the Delegate places the Vice Delegate, at least temporarily as Delegate.)

Having applicants on the Council who really aren't experienced in either the role of Delegate. Vice Delegate. or preferably both, simply does not serve the interests of TNP. The exercise of responsibility of both offices as part of a history that established trustworthiness is of fundamental importance in being accepted for service on the Security Council.

I have serious reservations about both of these applicants even getting past review by the Security Council itself. But it seems to me they're gunshy about not accepting any applicant, no matter how inferior their qualifications, and that is a worrisome trend.
Click to expand...
Oh no!

I agree with Grosse.
 
I must ask the Speaker to remove my application from vote. As it stands, real life commitments have taken a considerable chunk of my time and I will not have the ability to maintain my endorsement count at the expected levels. I am currently considering leaving the WA all together as it currently stands. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
 
Since Kialga has indicated their unwillingness to be a member of the SC, I will not entertain motions to vote on their application.

Nessuno remains nominated by the SC, but as of yet, there is no motion to vote on the floor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top