McMasterdonia's SC Application
- Thread starter Kaschovia
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I've gained 361 very quickly upon my return and will continue to gather more. Unfortunately a telegram campaign I sent out was cancelled by the mods due to a misunderstanding. I'll send another one out early next week.abc:
I am very effective at endotrading and am confident I'll have much higher numbers very soon.
- Discord
- COE#7110
For context, McMasterdonia was refounded three days ago. I think his endocount is gonna be fine.
- Discord
- COE#7110
Before we all get too excited, it's come to my attention that this application is invalid, because Mcm currently doesn't meet the endorsement requirement (which is the lower of 500 or 50% of the delegate's count). At the moment, that's 494, so Mcm will need to swap a bit more and reapply.
- TNP Nation
- Floresque
- Discord
- DivaythFyr
Once bae resubmits his application he'll have my full support.
Were the circumstances any different for Lord Ravenclaw when he applied with 300 endorsements (and was accepted) in March with fewer endorsements than McMasterdonia has applied with now? If not, why was that application considered valid in the first place? If so, how were the circumstances different?
3/2/2017 - Lord Ravenclaw applied for the SCKasch:
5/14/2017 - The SC Reform bill was passed by the RA (and approved by the Delegate on the same day).
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I believe that I now meet the requirements.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- Zyvet#9958
I have a number of questions for the applicant.
I would like to ask about whether you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and whether you would, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to create a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)
Would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?
There have been two recent applications to the Security Council which have required the Council to vote on whether to nominate the applicant or not (one Pallaith's and the other Siwale's). If you had been on the Council in time, how would you have voted in relation to each of them, what concerns would you have about their applications, and what do you think were their merits?
The most recent application to the Council was voted on by only two members of the Council (a minority of the whole voting membership), and in two of the three votes prior to that a minority of members of the Council were, effectively, able to reject an applicant. Do you have any opinion on this?
What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?
I would like to ask about whether you consider the present state of disclosure of information from the Security Council to be adequate and whether you would, if on the Council, support the amendment of the Rules of the Council so as to create a disclosure mechanism? (particularly, though not exclusively, I would like to know whether you consider the present state of disclosure in relation to discussion of applicants to the Council to be appropriate, given the paucity of information that it leaves this Assembly to make its decision with)
Would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?
There have been two recent applications to the Security Council which have required the Council to vote on whether to nominate the applicant or not (one Pallaith's and the other Siwale's). If you had been on the Council in time, how would you have voted in relation to each of them, what concerns would you have about their applications, and what do you think were their merits?
The most recent application to the Council was voted on by only two members of the Council (a minority of the whole voting membership), and in two of the three votes prior to that a minority of members of the Council were, effectively, able to reject an applicant. Do you have any opinion on this?
What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Thank you Zyv, I am glad you didn't forget to ask me these questions.Zyvetskistaahn:
1) I think the current disclosure of information from the Security Council is accurate. I would be okay with a select disclosure of discussions 1 year after they have occurred, if the Council decides that they are no longer sensitive. I would be cautious about releasing discussions regarding an applicant to the public. The Council will always speak it's mind on applicants, but I think it is important that we respect the process. We don't want these discussions of the Council where we do, potentially, doubt someones trustworthiness, reliability, or anything else, to otherwise harm their desire to perhaps apply for the Council again in future once they have been with us for longer, or to discourage them from participating in other areas of the North Pacific. My concern would be that someone might view it as being a public criticism by many of the older members of this community, and that is the last thing we need.
2) Regarding the recent applicants.
Siwale
Pros: Active, high endorsements, fresh ideas/blood to the Council.
Cons: I don't know them very well, hasn't been here for long.
Subject to the views of the other Council members that may or may not have persuaded me, I would have voted against Siwale's application and encouraged him to apply again later. His interest in the SC is a positive thing and I don't wish to discourage him from applying in the future. I just do not know him well enough to support him on the Council at this time.
Pallaith
I don't see a particular need for the Delegate to be on the Security Council, though to be fair, I was a member of the Security Council when Delegate each time. The Vice Delegate can invite them to participate and usually does do so. Generally speaking, if the person is suitable to be elected Delegate, then unless I have information to the contrary or otherwise deeply distrust that individual, I would support them on the council.
A key issue would be that if we were concerned that the Delegate would go rogue, and they were already a member of the Council, the only way to discuss this without their knowledge would be to discuss it offsite, or to remove them from the Council, which could bring any attempt to go rogue forward before we were adequately prepared. I could see an argument that the Delegate should not be a member of the Security Council, unless they had been a member prior to their election as Delegate. But ultimately it is a judgement call that should be made on a case by case basis.
3)The Council's activity fluctuates throughout the year. We may have a large number, but some may be primarily game focused, whereas others are primarily forum focused. I would prefer that the Council was primarily focused on endotrading and engaging with the on-site community, AND participating in all votes, but we can't always have it that way. The Vice Delegate will go to every effort to get as much input as possible, but generally speaking the Council is usually unanimous in it's verdicts as most matters are not particularly controversial. I don't have a problem with a minority of the Council voting to make a decision, if I, or others do not vote.
4) If the Council had a valid reason to do so, then yes, it should consider revoking the nomination of previous members. I do not think there are any previous members (at least while I have been involved in TNP) who I would support having the SC's support revoked from. I think that there is no need for a given practice for this to occur, if there was a previous member who was not wanted, I can assure you that the Council would be very vocal about not wanting them to be a member again. I think this is a very unlikely situation to arise. I am not sure if the Council does discuss the previous nominations before the Vice Delegate presents it to assembly, I don't see an urgent need for them to do so.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- Zyvet#9958
It looks like this question was missed: would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council, in order to provide for the disclosure of information, require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
My apologies.Zyvetskistaahn:
There is no requirement that it be held in public or that it be held in private/secrecy. It would be at the discretion of the Councillor who raised the matter or the Chair to decide.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- Zyvet#9958
Were you the Chair would you decide that such discussion be held publicly or in secret?mcmasterdonia:
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I have complete faith in McM for SC.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
In private. Announce publicly and then invite questions. I believe this was the approach taken by the court. But I don't feel strongly either way.Zyvetskistaahn:
Thanks ??Romanoffia:
I move we vote.
Owenstacey
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- HuksGares
My sincerest apologies, I did not see that a motion to vote had been tabled. A vote has been scheduled to begin in two days (24/08/2017).