Plembobria's SC Application

Seeing 14 motions[note]Five would have been enough, ya'll.[/note] for an immediate vote, including the one who introduced the proposal, a vote will be opened on this proposal forthwith.

I am a smidge late, but I join the motion as well.

It is perfectly appropriate to discuss the SC's procedures around discussions and the release of information, and it is likewise perfectly appropriate to ask an applicant questions about their stance on the same. But it is not, in my opinion, appropriate to delay for months a vote on an applicant while they are quizzed in depth on a variety of security issues, about which they have no final definitive say, and for which they cannot appropriately speak on the Council's behalf.

I join McM's motion

SillyString:

I am a smidge late, but I join the motion as well.

It is perfectly appropriate to discuss the SC's procedures around discussions and the release of information, and it is likewise perfectly appropriate to ask an applicant questions about their stance on the same. But it is not, in my opinion, appropriate to delay for months a vote on an applicant while they are quizzed in depth on a variety of security issues, about which they have no final definitive say, and for which they cannot appropriately speak on the Council's behalf.

Click to expand...

If I may comment on the delay, as it appears to be suggested that it is those asking questions of the applicant (or, rather, myself) have caused the delay, I must say that that is simply not the case.

If one looks at the gap between the motion being introduced and my questions being asked, it is a gap of around eleven hours; the gap between those questions being answered and my follow-up questions, it is barely three hours; the gap between those follow-ups being answered and themselves followed-up, just over a single hour; the between the answers to those questions and my most recent questions, around ten hours. Taken together, those gaps are barely longer than a day.

By comparison, the applicant delayed answering my first group of questions for over three weeks; my second group for over a month; and the third for two months.

They are questions, from what I recall, that I put to all of the applicants at around the time of this application starting and they were dealt with by those applicants at a pace that is positively dizzying when compared to that of this applicant. They are not questions which require the applicant to have a definitive say on nor do I wish them to speak for the Council, I wish to know their opinions on matters which do concern me as a citizen and, if I may be frank, I wish to know those opinions now, at a time when it is possible for the Assembly to exercise some democratic control, and not at some distant point in the future when the only option would be to pursue a recall that was doomed to fail.

Zyvetskistaahn:

They are questions, from what I recall, that I put to all of the applicants at around the time of this application starting

Click to expand...

I do not believe that I faced any questions when I was joining the SC. Many others did not either.

I have no problem with your initial questions, but the followups became, in my opinion, problematic - given the topic of this thread.

Asking about the state of SC disclosure, and whether the SC as a whole should change its policy, is a question for the SC. An applicant can give their opinion (as Plembobria did - he indicated he believed the secrecy existed for a reason), but is not able to discuss specifics of the SC's rationale beyond, at best, a hypothetical as to why the SC has not adopted a policy of public disclosure.

Asking about whether a particular discussion among SC members should take place in public and in private... again, Plembobria can give an opinion, but it is the VD and the SC as a whole which determines whether a discussion is public or not. Asking if privacy is required is asking something he cannot actually comment on, particularly as he is not a member, currently, of the SC.

Asking about what another SC member might do ("is your suggestion that a Councillor would hold back information") is necessarily hypothetical, as Plembobria cannot speak authoritatively about what an SC member would do, nor can he provide specific examples where someone might hold back, nor can he speak to specific instances where discussion being public would have affected content... because again, he's not a member of the Council. (And also because disclosing without permission would be espionage, even if he were, but ignoring that part.)

Asking Plembobria to opine on specific policy ideas of yours (e.g., having members of the public submit information to the Council) additionally goes beyond the scope of what he can do. He cannot singlehandedly implement such a policy, even if he thinks it's the greatest policy change in the history of TNP. He also is not equipped to speak on behalf of the Council as to its thoughts on said changes. He gave you an answer; he didn't like the suggestion. Not everyone is up for a detailed legal argument, unlike you or I, and they are allowed to have and keep their opinions just the same. You may think that opinion is wrong, but this is not the context to argue about it in.

And that's just my concerns from the first page of this thread.

Again, I do not think this subject is unimportant. Disclosure of information is something that is dear to me, and I have played a role in implementing it in 2 branches of government already. The SC is tricky, deeply so, and changes to its disclosure policies deserve a proper discussion with full attention, not just continual questioning of one particular applicant to the body. If you want to start a separate thread within the RA for such a discussion to be held, I would support that, and I would be thrilled to engage with you.

Eluvatar:

I have a question toward the applicant.

Who has responsibility for the execution of Article 5 of the SC Procedures, specifically clause b?

b. In the interest of protecting the delegacy from rogue elements, the Council will observe and report on nations whose endorsements reach two-thirds of the Vice Delegate's endorsement count, exceed the endorsement count of multiple Council members, or are otherwise notably high or rapidly growing; who are endorsed by a particularly unusual group of nations; or who otherwise raise suspicions or concerns.

Click to expand...

What nations do the procedures currently mandate observation of purely based on their current endorsement count?

Click to expand...

Quoting my question for fear it has gotten lost.

It might be reasonable for me to take this question to the Vice Delegate's desk, however.

Eluvatar:

It might be reasonable for me to take this question to the Vice Delegate's desk, however.

Click to expand...

I'm sure, if you do, the vice delegate would be happy to provide an answer. An applicant to the SC may not be best positioned to know, before being admitted, the full list of nations needing to be monitored.

Eluvatar:

Eluvatar:

I have a question toward the applicant.

Who has responsibility for the execution of Article 5 of the SC Procedures, specifically clause b?

b. In the interest of protecting the delegacy from rogue elements, the Council will observe and report on nations whose endorsements reach two-thirds of the Vice Delegate's endorsement count, exceed the endorsement count of multiple Council members, or are otherwise notably high or rapidly growing; who are endorsed by a particularly unusual group of nations; or who otherwise raise suspicions or concerns.

Click to expand...

What nations do the procedures currently mandate observation of purely based on their current endorsement count?

Click to expand...

Quoting my question for fear it has gotten lost.

It might be reasonable for me to take this question to the Vice Delegate's desk, however.

Click to expand...

Are you asking a hypothetical question, or are you asking which specific nations?

Which specific nations.