My SC application

plembobria

plembobria

TNPer
-
-
As of this moment, it has been 30 days since I applied for membership in the SC. The slowly grinding cogs of the TNP bureaucracy have not yet gotten around to my application. As such, per the constitution, the RA may vote on my application without the SC's approval.

Artivle 6.2:
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...
 
No idea, but most likely it was either inactivity for a good reason or laziness. Anyways, is this the official vote thread or is this just a sort of announcement?
 
Great Bights Mum:
The SC has not reached a decision. This thread would be for the RA to discuss plemby's application.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the discussion thread. However the deadline for the SC to reach the decision is up. The RA can approve my application without the SC's decision.
 
Well, Plembobria, could you tell us why you should be on the Security Council? What is the benefit of admitting you?
 
I would be very unlikely to vote for a SC application without a recommendation from the existing SC, or at least an indication os the split.

Perhaps a member of the SC can let us know why the application is still under debate for thirty days without resolution, or give us an indication of the current vote?
 
RPI:
Well, Plembobria, could you tell us why you should be on the Security Council? What is the benefit of admitting you?
Click to expand...
I'm an active and involved member, I have a high endocount, and I'm willing to serve TNP in this capacity.
flemingovia:
I would be very unlikely to vote for a SC application without a recommendation from the existing SC, or at least an indication os the split.

Perhaps a member of the SC can let us know why the application is still under debate for thirty days without resolution, or give us an indication of the current vote?
Click to expand...

I asked Asta about my application on IRC a few weeks ago and she pretty much just reminded me of the deadline. My guess is that they're all preoccupied with the transition.
 
flemingovia:
I would be very unlikely to vote for a SC application without a recommendation from the existing SC, or at least an indication os the split.

Perhaps a member of the SC can let us know why the application is still under debate for thirty days without resolution, or give us an indication of the current vote?
Click to expand...
I just noticed that it's been 30 days.

I suppose the delay is because Plem's application was made while I was acting Vice Delegate (the second time) and SS hasn't taken it up yet. So, I bumped the discussion thread and asked that the application be moved to a vote. Hopefully it will go ASAP.

Other than that, either path it goes, I support Plem's application to the SC and will vote in favour.
 
I have the same objection to this applicant as I have for the other two most recent applicants.

In good conscious, I cannot support this application in the absence of a demonstrated history of experience and trustworthiness. This applicant has not shown either. When and if this comes to a vote in the SC, I would vote nay there as well.
 
Surely procedurally we have gone beyond that point? It ought to be at RA vote?

But I would be glad of guidance from the RA.
 
Article 6.2:
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...
The language here leaves it open to debate as to whether an SC vote is necessary at this point. I think the only real difference is the threshold for confirmation. 2/3 majority (without an SC nomination) as compared to a simple majority (with an SC nomination). My :2c:
 
There is certainly nothing stopping the SC from nominating a candidate after 30 days have passed since their application. There is also, at this point, nothing stopping the RA from making plem an SC member without SC nomination.
 
I'm pretty sure COE is correct. I haven't moved for a vote since the SC started their vote.

I'd rather not be someone who forced his way into the SC without their approval.
 
Look, since it's likely that (unless one of the other two SC members comes out of nowhere and votes aye) I won't be accepted I'd like to ask why. Don't get me wrong, I won't be crestfallen If I'm not accepted. I have other things to worry about. And there are plenty of other things to do with my WA membership.

A larger amount than usual have voted nay, (some whose opinions I respect) and I find that to be rather concerning. So out of mere curiosity I'd like to know why so many have voted against.

Specifically I'd like to know if there are any questions about my loyalty. On the flipside, questions about my competence are completely understood. I did make some procedural blunders during my term as justice.

It can be more satisfying to understand people's objections to you. Application discussions are now done in secret, and not without good reason. We justices get to discuss cases in secret as well. That's probably preferable. I feel that I can properly better myself in this game by understanding what more veteran players have to say about me.
 
I believe that since the thirty day period has already passed, if they don't accept you, you may still be admitted by a 2/3 majority of the RA.
 
RPI:
I believe that since the thirty day period has already passed, if they don't accept you, you may still be admitted by a 2/3 majority of the RA.
Click to expand...
That's unlikely, since many RA members would consider it rather imprudent to vote for an SC application that the SC itself denied.
 
There can be exceptional circumstances. That ability for the RA to admit someone exists to prevent the SC becoming a closed society and refusing people at the first instance. Do I think this case warrants that? I'm sorry, but no. The SC has handled this application properly, albeit a tad delayed due to conflicting circumstances.

I think you would be best served asking the SC members why they voted against your application and what you could do better in order to be considered a more suitable applicant to the council.
 
My reasoning on this application is the same as two other recent applications"

Nessuno and Kialga's SC Applications post 19

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...
 
I don't share grosse's concern about experience, because I don't think it's terribly relevant. I also don't have any concerns about your trustworthiness. My reasoning for voting nay was more a question of longevity - I want to know that people on the SC will be hanging around for a good while, and a (strong!) six month tenure in TNP doesn't quite give me that assurance.

It was a hard vote for me to cast, and I certainly would have no qualms voting for you down the line.

As a side note to everyone, since I'm about to announce the results of the vote, Plembobria has been nominated by the SC with a vote of 4-3 in favor.
 
It's true that former Delegates make great candidates for the SC, but I don't see it as a prerequisite. If someone without the experience would have to step up, there are plenty of us around to help out.

As for longevity, I think it does help establish ones trustworthiness and reliability over time. Still, there are no guarantees that anyone will be here for the long haul. Serving in a position of responsibility actually makes it more likely that someone will stick around.

I don't see any concrete reasons why plemby shouldn't be on the SC. He's active, involved, and committed to TNP. I'm glad he wants to serve the region in this capacity, and I hope the RA will support his nomination.
 
4-3 is hardly a ringing endorsement. I also get uneasy when someone seems really really keen to get on the security council.
 
To be fair, there was a fourth nay vote that was disallowed by the Vice Delegate, and I do not understand why the rigidity in counting SC votes. I think it is a poor practice, and serves no one's interest.
 
Not sure if it has any bearing on discussion atm, but plembobria has recently resigned from the WA, and currently stands at 62 endos. His SPDR meets the SC requirement though. Procedurally speaking, does that render this application invalid? Does he need to get his endo count back up to an appropriate level, and then re-apply? Or do we continue this discussion until that point?
 
I meant to bring this up here. I resigned from the WA when I believed that the SC wouldn't approve me. I will need to get my endo count back up before I can be approved by the RA. In the meantime, I'm still nominated, so the RA can vote on my application when I my endocount gets up again, thanks to Asta's delightful quick SC reform bill.
 
I have some question as to whether the SC nomination is even valid, beased on this development. since it sounds as if the WA resignation was before the SC vote was completed.

I will raise it within the SC.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I have some question as to whether the SC nomination is even valid, beased on this development. since it sounds as if the WA resignation was before the SC vote was completed.

I will raise it within the SC.
Click to expand...
I resigned from the WA after FEC voted. Since FEC voted after the vote was closed, I think the nomination is valid.
 
Resigning the WA the moment a vote even appears to be going against your application does not signal to me a deep-rooted commitment to TNP's security.

When you were asked why you wanted to be on the SC, you replied that you were "active and involved", which is laudable, but no real reason to be on the SC, and that you had a "high endocount" - which no longer applies.

I still have no real sense of why you want to be on the SC, let alone why you are working so hard to be admitted.

Squeaking in a recommendation from the current SC on a procedural technicality does not fill me with confidence.
 
Quite frankly, the SC vote (procedurally) was in and of itself pointless, as you had already pointed out that the 30 day limit had passed. So how anyone voted shouldn't really change your perspective on committing yourself to TNP. :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top