My SC application

Former English Colony:
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. :/
Click to expand...
Whether the SC chooses to nominate or not affects what percentage an applicant needs to be admitted - 1/2 or 2/3.

It also likely affects how people will vote on their application, as most people indicate that they care what the SC thinks.

Of course, it's only ever voted to deny one person and that person was admitted by RA vote, so...
 
I'm voting against as well. The vote by the SC wasn't too impressive for my liking. (I personally prefer a clear majority, not a split decision) and the fact that the applicant couldn't even keep the endorsements until a decision was made. How can we trust you to hold endorsements forever if you can't keep them until you are admitted?
 
This region has potential and so does Plemby. If we put him on the list of security councilors to endorse on the RMB, as well as send out a mass TG to the region explaining the situation and telling everyone to endorse him, it'll happen fairly quickly. I have faith in him and this region and I will be voting for. I encourage everyone to do the same.

EDIT: Oh, and he already has 339 endorsements. :)
 
Bootsie:
I'm voting against as well. The vote by the SC wasn't too impressive for my liking. (I personally prefer a clear majority, not a split decision) and the fact that the applicant couldn't even keep the endorsements until a decision was made. How can we trust you to hold endorsements forever if you can't keep them until you are admitted?
Click to expand...
Couldn't even keep endorsements? I resigned from the WA. Deliberately. Before that, I was the eighth most endorsed nation in TNP and the world. I was in the top ten for months, I got to be as high as sixth most endorsed.

Empirically, I am quite capable of maintaining a high endocount. I also have very quickly re-built my endocount, and I continue to keep it up.
 
Funkadelia:
I will be voting against when the vote is opened because of the dismal attitude shown when the prospect of not being accepted into the SC became apparent.
Click to expand...
"Dismal attitude?" Are you referring to my asking why some SC members voted nay, or my resignation from the WA?

I must say my attitude at both times was definitely anything but dismal.
 
plembobria:
Bootsie:
I'm voting against as well. The vote by the SC wasn't too impressive for my liking. (I personally prefer a clear majority, not a split decision) and the fact that the applicant couldn't even keep the endorsements until a decision was made. How can we trust you to hold endorsements forever if you can't keep them until you are admitted?
Click to expand...
Couldn't even keep endorsements? I resigned from the WA. Deliberately. Before that, I was the eighth most endorsed nation in TNP and the world. I was in the top ten for months, I got to be as high as sixth most endorsed.

Empirically, I am quite capable of maintaining a high endocount. I also have very quickly re-built my endocount, and I continue to keep it up.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. You deliberately resigned from the WA when you knew you were applying for the Security Council. I know you can build an endorsement count, the fact was you chose not to keep it that way through the application process.
 
Bootsie:
plembobria:
Bootsie:
I'm voting against as well. The vote by the SC wasn't too impressive for my liking. (I personally prefer a clear majority, not a split decision) and the fact that the applicant couldn't even keep the endorsements until a decision was made. How can we trust you to hold endorsements forever if you can't keep them until you are admitted?
Click to expand...
Couldn't even keep endorsements? I resigned from the WA. Deliberately. Before that, I was the eighth most endorsed nation in TNP and the world. I was in the top ten for months, I got to be as high as sixth most endorsed.

Empirically, I am quite capable of maintaining a high endocount. I also have very quickly re-built my endocount, and I continue to keep it up.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. You deliberately resigned from the WA when you knew you were applying for the Security Council. I know you can build an endorsement count, the fact was you chose not to keep it that way through the application process.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean he can't enter- especially now that he has his endocount practically back.
 
Bootsie:
plembobria:
Bootsie:
I'm voting against as well. The vote by the SC wasn't too impressive for my liking. (I personally prefer a clear majority, not a split decision) and the fact that the applicant couldn't even keep the endorsements until a decision was made. How can we trust you to hold endorsements forever if you can't keep them until you are admitted?
Click to expand...
Couldn't even keep endorsements? I resigned from the WA. Deliberately. Before that, I was the eighth most endorsed nation in TNP and the world. I was in the top ten for months, I got to be as high as sixth most endorsed.

Empirically, I am quite capable of maintaining a high endocount. I also have very quickly re-built my endocount, and I continue to keep it up.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. You deliberately resigned from the WA when you knew you were applying for the Security Council. I know you can build an endorsement count, the fact was you chose not to keep it that way through the application process.
Click to expand...
Do you expect me, if admitted, to randomly resign WA membership?
 
The other application has not yet been moved to vote, this one, I am less sure as to why it has not been put to vote.

I would note, when the vote on this application does begin, I feel that I am more likely to vote against the application than I am inclined to vote in favour, on account of the narrowness of the vote by the Security Council and the resignation of World Assembly membership by the applicant. The latter I do find to be an issue, regardless of whether the applicant believes it to be, it was a highly questionable decision and does not lend to confidence to the application, which was shaken already by the vote.
 
I am actually unsure whether a SC application needs to be moved to vote, proposal seconder etc. since it is a procedural motion.

I defer to the Speaker on that. However i note that the speaker has not logged on to the forum for some days. Perhaps this is the reason for the delay?
 
Apologies for the delay. The Speaker is on a LoA and the the department is moving quite slowly. I will bring this to vote at once.

EDIT: Just kidding, it looks like I don't have permission to start topics on the voting floor. >_>
 
It has definitely bogged down of late. The Speaker was supposed to return from leave July 5th, and the Acting Speaker hasn't been around much either. The ECs seem to have disappeared as well. :ermm:
 
plembobria:
Funkadelia:
I will be voting against when the vote is opened because of the dismal attitude shown when the prospect of not being accepted into the SC became apparent.
Click to expand...
"Dismal attitude?" Are you referring to my asking why some SC members voted nay, or my resignation from the WA?

I must say my attitude at both times was definitely anything but dismal.
Click to expand...
Your resignation because you thought the vote was going south. It really doesn't really do much to show your dedication to the region.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top