Piscivore's Security Council Application

Pauline Bonaparte

Pauline Bonaparte

Her Worshipfulness
-
TNP Nation
Floresque
Discord
DivaythFyr
Oyez oyez oyez!

Members of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific, Right Honorable Legislators: The Security Council has approved an application by Piscivore to join the aforementioned Council. The application was approved four to one, with one abstention, and the applicant is therefore nominated by the Council.

The vote can be viewed here. A public question-and-answer session with the candidate can be viewed here. The Chair of the Council presents this to the Regional Assembly to discuss and vote upon.
 
I do not support Piscivore's admission. A Security Councilor, in my eyes, should have been on the forum for a minimum of 1 year. Experience is key.
 
I definitely support Piscivore's application. They've been active in the region on the RMB and have been a skilled and dedicated participant in TNP RP. I think that their strong connection to the in-game nations will be an asset to the SC, and they have always struck me as both sensible and trustworthy. :)
 
I support his application. It's important to have a Security Council filled with members from all aspects of The North Pacific.
 
I am against this admission. I'm not specifically against Piscivore, but I think the Security Council is already large enough, with no need for more members. As far as I can tell, the Council already has 11 members. That seems absurdly large for what, in my eyes, is supposed to be a small core group of citizens who we would trust with defending the region at all costs, and with becoming acting Delegates should the need arise. I would also like to remind the Assembly that, by my count, Lord Ravenclaw's application to the Council has passed, so we must also consider his possible admission to the Council in the immediate future.
 
I agree I think that the SC is extremely large. I also think that not all nations need to be on the SC in order to contribute to regional security or to have a high endorsement count. I voted for Piscivores application because I was impressed with his answers to SC questions and for the in game aspects, where he has good relations with in game nations and contributes regularly to RMB discussions. These factors help when the SC is aiming to coordinate a very large and diverse community in the event of a crisis.
 
quak1234:
I am against this admission. I'm not specifically against Piscivore, but I think the Security Council is already large enough, with no need for more members. As far as I can tell, the Council already has 11 members. That seems absurdly large for what, in my eyes, is supposed to be a small core group of citizens who we would trust with defending the region at all costs, and with becoming acting Delegates should the need arise. I would also like to remind the Assembly that, by my count, Lord Ravenclaw's application to the Council has passed, so we must also consider his possible admission to the Council in the immediate future.
Click to expand...
It is critical that we trust SC members to take the delegacy should the need arise, but I think it's important here to point out that the biggest threat TNP faces to its delegacy is an organized group of several high-endorsement and high-influence nations. The larger our SC is, the more difficult it is for any would-be couper to eject all of them, and so the more cooperating nations they will need to keep control.

I don't think the SC should get too much larger than it already is, but a few more trustworthy applicants aren't going to break the bank.
 
Hmm, I think SillyString has enlightened me. I hadn't considered the way in which a larger Security Council could benefit the region. Alright, I'm in favor of Piscivore's admission.
 
I do have a problem with this nomination because he is unknown to me and other members of the Council, and I find it difficult to conclude that Piscivore possesses the sufficient broad and exceptional level of trustworthiness that membership on the Council should demand. I was not able to support Piscivore's admission at the nomination stage, and I am unable to do so now.
 
I am against this application as I do not believe Piscivore has gained enough truthworthiness that I have of the other members of the Security Council. I probably will vote for in the future, but not now.
 
Syrixia:
I do not support Piscivore's admission. A Security Councilor, in my eyes, should have been on the forum for a minimum of 1 year. Experience is key.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue on my behalf here, and I respect those that have reservations, but I joined the forum May 18, 2014
 
I am for Piscivore but I do believe that the Security Council is already too large for it's own good.

I am hereby AGAINST the appointment of the above mentioned nation to the Security Council of the North Pacific.
 
I was prepared to abstain on this application. Piscivore is essentially an unknown commodity (to me anyway) at this point. Yes, active on the RMB, but what has he/she done for us lately (from a security/governmental standpoint)? The requirements have obviously been met, but that's a given with the WADP. I'm put off by comments that the SC is getting too large, but it's ok to accept the most recent applicants. Switching to Nay.
 
I think Piscivore is an awesome player. I am sure that as he spends more time in TNP, and as he serves TNP further, he will definitely earn our trust, and hopefully a seat in our S.C. However for the time being, I cannot see myself supporting Piscivore's application.

~ Tomb
 
Maybe one day. Not yet.

And I have said elsewhere that i fear that some people see SC admission as simply a hoop they have to jump through in order to be allowed to continue endoswapping. I do not know if this is the case here - which underlines the fact that i do not know the applicant enough to support them.
 
First off thanks to Piscivore for their activity and overall nice behaviour, and also for their wish to be useful and contribute to regional security.

Second off, I was also rather unknown when I first joined the Security Council, but back then the SC roster counted 8 or 9 nations and some of them were inactive... Joining a list of 12 (soon 13 with Raven) where most of them are active anyway is not actually helping anyone, or I would apply myself.

So I am voting against this good TNPer to join the SC for now. And even if it's not the same debate I don't know what to vote on Raven's application for that matter. He's perfect for the SC but we have to draw the line somewhere... I'll probably vote for Raven's application and draw my personal line after that. 13 Councillors are more than enough.
 
quak1234:
Hmm, I think SillyString has enlightened me. I hadn't considered the way in which a larger Security Council could benefit the region. Alright, I'm in favor of Piscivore's admission.
Click to expand...
As am I.
 
Would anyone be generous enough to remind me why having an "unknown" on the Security Council would be a bad thing? Say we admit Piscivore, and he/she/it turns out to be an evil person intent on destroying the region.
I'm not trying to say this as "What's the worst that could happen?", but that's literally what I'm asking. I'm genuinely curious.
 
In theory, should he attempt to take the delegacy, even from a SC role, he'll be easy to block and remove from the region. There will be other Security Council members ahead of him in the order of succession who should, in theory have higher endorsement and influence levels than him. Plus any attempt to get towards the delegacy in an obvious manner would be handled sharply by our sitting delegate or, using a slingshot, a member of the SC with enough influence to remove him (in the event that our sitting delegate does not have enough influence to do so themselves).
 
Apart from the principle of no letting a security risk into the security council, i suppose it could be argued that one potential rogue on the SC would be unlikely to be able to sustain a coup. But what about four? or five? Applying to the sc over a period of a year or two, spread out over several months? All meeting the criteria, but all "unknowns".

Me, I would rather have people i know and trust. It is not 100% guaranteed it is safe, but it is a lot safer than a SC with unknown and untrusted people in it.
 
There has been and continues to be, a misperception that activity and reliability is the same as the level of trustworthiness. They are not. A generally well known reputation and wide ranging level of experience in TNP over a very extended period of time, that can be amply demonstrated by an applicant nation is, and always should have been, the necessary level of trustworthiness.

In the past year or so, I have found myself voting against applicants for admission as a Security Council member because of this lack. The unwavering desire of certain groups to have as many unknowns as possible go into the Council poses an ever-increasing risk to the ability of the Council to serve its intended purpose, and I fear the next step will be a highly politicized change in the order of succession to push long term and generally well known members behind and below this group of generally unfamiliar or limited familiar new "faces" whose general long term reputation of trustworthiness has yet to be clearly shown or to be established.

This is what I believe Flem is referring to obliquely, but I am making it explicit. This is leading to a clear and present danger to the political stability and security of TNP, and shows the folly I warned would come when the explicit trustworthiness standard was removed from the regional security security law. That language needs to be restored. Whether some sort of durational presence needs to be explicitly added, I don't know, and I am not sure that additional requirements to trustworthiness would be sufficient.

Edited to fix Kindle's hyperactive autocorrect features.
 
flemingovia:
Apart from the principle of no letting a security risk into the security council, i suppose it could be argued that one potential rogue on the SC would be unlikely to be able to sustain a coup. But what about four? or five? Applying to the sc over a period of a year or two, spread out over several months? All meeting the criteria, but all "unknowns".

Me, I would rather have people i know and trust. It is not 100% guaranteed it is safe, but it is a lot safer than a SC with unknown and untrusted people in it.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree with this. Couping TNP would take a concerted team effort over a long period of time. It could be seen as making it a lot easier if SC requirements are based on benchmarks rather than trustworthiness.
 
flemingovia:
Apart from the principle of no letting a security risk into the security council, i suppose it could be argued that one potential rogue on the SC would be unlikely to be able to sustain a coup. But what about four? or five? Applying to the sc over a period of a year or two, spread out over several months? All meeting the criteria, but all "unknowns".

Me, I would rather have people i know and trust. It is not 100% guaranteed it is safe, but it is a lot safer than a SC with unknown and untrusted people in it.
Click to expand...

That argument works both ways, I guess. The more members the more unlikely it is that many of them would work together. I agree that I would only want people that I know and trust. Sometimes I think members vote aye to pass it to the RA so that this kind of debate can occur.

Grosseschnauzer:
There has been and continues to be, a misperception that activity and reliability is the same as the level of trustworthiness. They are not. A generally well known reputation and wide ranging level of experience in TNP over a very extended period of time, that can be amply d e demonstrated by an applicant nation is, and always should have been, the necessary level of trustworthiness.
Click to expand...

I don't think that activity or reliability are considered to be the same as trustworthiness. They are considered to be important. Having an SC full of trustworthy people is great. If it is fully of trustworthy inactive, and unreliable people, that isn't so good. IMO the three need to go together to have an ideal SC candidate.

The unwavering desire of certain group to have as many unknowns as possible into the Council poses an ever-increasing risk to the ability of the Council to serve it s intended purpose, and I fear the next step will be a highly politicized change in the order of succession to push long term and generally well known members behind and below this group of generally unfamiliar or limited familiar new "faces" whose general long term reputation of trustworthiness has yet to be clearly shown or to be established.
Click to expand...

Ooooh a fear campaign, how delightful! Who is this group who is pushing for as many unknowns as possible? What is their motive?

The only reason that long term or well known members would likely drop places in the L.O.S is if they are inactive and do not tart very often. I find it very unlikely that we would find unknown members above any SC member who is active and who does their job properly.

The reality is that in the event of a crisis, the position of the SC members on the L.O.S beyond perhaps first, second, and third position, is not hugely relevant. The SC coordinates efforts together, and the person best placed to take the Delegacy from an inactive or a rogue Delegate will likely be asked to do so. That would not change who the acting Delegate or the Acting Vice Delegate is in such a situation.

This is what I believe Fleming is referring to obliquely, but I am making it explicit. This is leading to a clear and present danger to the political stability and security of TNP, A and shows the folly I warned would come when the explicit trustworthiness standard was removed from the regional security security law. That language needs to be restored. Whether some sort of educational presence needs to be explicitly added, I don't know, and I am not sure that additional requirement to trustworthiness would be sufficient.
Click to expand...

I think that the SC is too large. I think that any suggestion of a present danger to our political stability or security is an exaggeration.

A proposal can be made. I agree with comments by others that the SC has become another hoop for them to jump through once they meet the requirements. We can vote candidates down, but we haven't had a candidate yet who I have felt required me to vote strongly against them. Our recent applicants are all people I've felt confident in - Plembobria, Nessuno, Malvad, etc. Piscivore was the first one in a while that I wasn't certain about, in the end though, I voted for his application based on the answers to his questions and in the hope that this could go before the RA for this kind of debate.
 
yes.

Here is how you coup TNP successfully.

You need about 20 people who would commit to the project long-term. only five of them need to commit their WA nation.

Over a year or so the 20 move in. they do not form a recognisable grouping or a party. Contact is strictly PM only.

The five WAs start endoswapping to moderate high levels. Just low enough so as not to arouse suspicion.

Again, over time the 20 apply for citizenship. they get involved in OOC, Roleplay, minor government positions.

When one of the WAs is well enough known, they try for the delgacy. the 20 votes, plus a few natives, may be enough. If not, they try again later with a raised profile. Sooner or later they win.

the sleeper delegate appoints some of the others, especially the WA nations, to ministry positions.

Meanwhile, again over time, the WA nations start to apply for SC membership. Since they have been around a while and meet the criteria, they probably get in.

When influence levels are high enough etc, a conflict in the region is engineered. The RA (stacked with sleepers) declares a state of emergency. Over a third of the SC are now sleepers, and all the 20 sleepers are getting very vocal, confusing everyone about who is in the right and who is in the wrong....

I am pretty sure you can carry on the story from here.

And that, kiddies, is how you coup TNP.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Our recent applicants are all people I've felt confident in - Plembobria, Nessuno, Malvad, etc. Piscivore was the first one in a while that I wasn't certain about, in the end though, I voted for his application based on the answers to his questions and in the hope that this could go before the RA for this kind of debate.
Click to expand...
And none of them were so well known as to have a universal reputation of trustiworthiness in the minds of all of the Council members.

It is not sufficient to say "Our recent applicants are all people I've felt confident in." That may be true of you personally but that is not enough to have the necessary widespread recognition of trustworthiness that is essential for the current regional security apparatus to work as it was designed.

I will be bringing forth a bill that I drafted originally as a result of discussions within the Security Council on the trustworthiness element.

Whether that bill should entertain any other changes to the Regional Security Law can be discussed and if there is a widespread consensus for additional changes, then I would be willing to add those.

This will be my last legislative proposal before I retire from participation in the Regional Assembly (not as a citizen, just from the R.A.) It's been over a decade now in this body, and it is long enough.
 
I am not lying about being a sleeper. I am a member of the pinkie pieders. Your delegate is as well. Soon we shall rule you.
 
flemingovia:
yes.

Here is how you coup TNP successfully.

You need about 20 people who would commit to the project long-term. only five of them need to commit their WA nation.

Over a year or so the 20 move in. they do not form a recognisable grouping or a party. Contact is strictly PM only.

The five WAs start endoswapping to moderate high levels. Just low enough so as not to arouse suspicion.

Again, over time the 20 apply for citizenship. they get involved in OOC, Roleplay, minor government positions.

When one of the WAs is well enough known, they try for the delgacy. the 20 votes, plus a few natives, may be enough. If not, they try again later with a raised profile. Sooner or later they win.

the sleeper delegate appoints some of the others, especially the WA nations, to ministry positions.

Meanwhile, again over time, the WA nations start to apply for SC membership. Since they have been around a while and meet the criteria, they probably get in.

When influence levels are high enough etc, a conflict in the region is engineered. The RA (stacked with sleepers) declares a state of emergency. Over a third of the SC are now sleepers, and all the 20 sleepers are getting very vocal, confusing everyone about who is in the right and who is in the wrong....

I am pretty sure you can carry on the story from here.

And that, kiddies, is how you coup TNP.
Click to expand...

This is actually harder than it sounds, thankfully :)
 
Eluvatar:
flemingovia:
yes.

Here is how you coup TNP successfully.

You need about 20 people who would commit to the project long-term. only five of them need to commit their WA nation.

Over a year or so the 20 move in. they do not form a recognisable grouping or a party. Contact is strictly PM only.

The five WAs start endoswapping to moderate high levels. Just low enough so as not to arouse suspicion.

Again, over time the 20 apply for citizenship. they get involved in OOC, Roleplay, minor government positions.

When one of the WAs is well enough known, they try for the delgacy. the 20 votes, plus a few natives, may be enough. If not, they try again later with a raised profile. Sooner or later they win.

the sleeper delegate appoints some of the others, especially the WA nations, to ministry positions.

Meanwhile, again over time, the WA nations start to apply for SC membership. Since they have been around a while and meet the criteria, they probably get in.

When influence levels are high enough etc, a conflict in the region is engineered. The RA (stacked with sleepers) declares a state of emergency. Over a third of the SC are now sleepers, and all the 20 sleepers are getting very vocal, confusing everyone about who is in the right and who is in the wrong....

I am pretty sure you can carry on the story from here.

And that, kiddies, is how you coup TNP.
Click to expand...

This is actually harder than it sounds, thankfully :)
Click to expand...
Sounds like a lot of effort and time to put into basically trolling an internet game. If I could put that much dedication into anything I'd be the next King or Rowling, not hanging out here. :)
 
SillyString:
I definitely support Piscivore's application. They've been active in the region on the RMB and have been a skilled and dedicated participant in TNP RP. I think that their strong connection to the in-game nations will be an asset to the SC, and they have always struck me as both sensible and trustworthy. :)
Click to expand...
I agree. I think Piscivore will bring a valuable alternative viewpoint to the SC, given their focus on RP rather than the more conventional governmental activities.

Support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top