Artemis's Security Council Application
- Thread starter Pallaith
- Start date
- Status
I thought I’d take a second to just explain my vote a bit here, maybe to win over the people who may be on the fence.
The North Pacific’s Security Council is one of the most integral pieces of our region. Many of our members are former Delegates, Vice Delegates, and Ministers with expertise in security, influence, and an excellent standing on how the game functions.
Because of our sometimes strict criteria, many of our applicants end up with an almost unanimous vote against and asked to reapply later. When I first saw that Artemis was applying, I wasn’t sure what to think. I knew of Artemis, but wasn’t sure if he was Security Council material.
I believe the Council needs someone with newer blood in our halls. I personally am working to balance RL and NS, many of our members are admin, and a few are current Ministers. We need someone on the Council without a ton of obligations that can help motivate and liven up this esteemed body.
Artemis has done a ton of work for TNP, even without being Delegate or Vice Delegate! We should use this opportunity to vote in someone I believe that has worked hard and put in the effort to prove their worth to the Council.
It’s also good to note that the applicant was nominated, as has become the gold standard of Security Council applicants, unanimously. With the wide variety of people on the Council, achieving this is a trial by fire on its own.
So I encourage everyone to vote in favor, and to Artemis, I hope to serve alongside you soon!
The North Pacific’s Security Council is one of the most integral pieces of our region. Many of our members are former Delegates, Vice Delegates, and Ministers with expertise in security, influence, and an excellent standing on how the game functions.
Because of our sometimes strict criteria, many of our applicants end up with an almost unanimous vote against and asked to reapply later. When I first saw that Artemis was applying, I wasn’t sure what to think. I knew of Artemis, but wasn’t sure if he was Security Council material.
I believe the Council needs someone with newer blood in our halls. I personally am working to balance RL and NS, many of our members are admin, and a few are current Ministers. We need someone on the Council without a ton of obligations that can help motivate and liven up this esteemed body.
Artemis has done a ton of work for TNP, even without being Delegate or Vice Delegate! We should use this opportunity to vote in someone I believe that has worked hard and put in the effort to prove their worth to the Council.
It’s also good to note that the applicant was nominated, as has become the gold standard of Security Council applicants, unanimously. With the wide variety of people on the Council, achieving this is a trial by fire on its own.
So I encourage everyone to vote in favor, and to Artemis, I hope to serve alongside you soon!
Besides being BFFs with McM, which dates back to their KoA days together, what exactly does Artemis bring to the table that surpasses the rejected applicants before them? There appears to be a number of applicants just as qualified, if not more qualified, who have been rejected or discouraged from applying in the past.
Last edited:
With all due respect, Mr. Delegate, I think it’s quite insulting you would think being “BFFs with McMasterdonia” would be a valid reason for Artemis being accepted to the Security Council, and does show your lack of knowledge on how this body functions.
Each applicant is reviewed on an individual basis, some are not active enough, some are too new to the forum, and some just don’t have the understanding of endorsement gathering and using influence to be effective if and when chaos strikes.
Artemis has not been Delegate or Vice Delegate, but even being in one of those two offices does not guarantee your entry into the Security Council. Artemis has been Culture Minister, an ambassador, Election Commissioner, and Deputy Speaker. He also came to TNP from the UCR sphere, which is valuable to have on the Council, since a lot of us have become rooted in TNP due to our length in the region.
Artemis is not on the level of many of our TNP greats, be that McMasterdonia, or SillyString, or Great Bights Mum. Waiting for another “great” to accept into the Council will take forever, but I think will hurt this Council in the long run. What Artemis does have is the potential to be a good Security Councilor, and with time, could be a good Vice Delegate or even Delegate.
As a note, we do let every applicant know what it will take to get into the Council, we’re not some malicious body looking to chew through applicants. If there’s someone you’d like to see on this Council that applied besides Artemis, ask them what our response was, and if they’ve fixed what we told them we’d like to see fixed, chances are they’d be nominated.
Thank you bootsie for the generous endorsement. If the Regional Assembly approves my nomination, I am looking forward to working with you and the rest of the Security Council.
I think that the Delegate does bring a valid question. What do I bring to the table that others candidates that I do agree on paper might be more qualified than myself? On paper, I have served as a Culture Minister, Deputy Minister, Deputy Speaker, Executive Staff Member, Ambassador to the East Pacific, Albion and the United Kingdom, Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner. I have been influenced by someone I do consider to be a mentor in McM, but I can assure you that there is plenty that McM and I have disagreed upon in the past. I bring in my independence to the Council. I do not adhere to any single philosophy of NS. My philosophy is what is best for the region, whether that be in my decisions as part of the Election Commission, or as the former Minister of Culture. I have no aspiration of seeking election to higher office. There are other ways of me serving this region that I have come to call home in NS over the past year. I enjoy the stability that TNP has over a vast many other regions that I have been a member of and that is in part due to the work of the Security Council. If I can be a part of keeping TNP secure so that other members can find a home here in this community that has been so welcoming to me.
Current Regions:
- Merridel - Queen and Administrator
- The East Pacific - Ambassador to TEP
- Albion - RPer and Ambassador to Albion
- The United Kingdom - Ambassador to the United Kingdom
- The Island of Atlas - Head of State, Founder, Legislator (recently refounded)
- The Commonwealth of Kings - Former Citizen and Ambassador for the COK
- The United Group - Former President (I think that was the title), legislator, and administrator
- The Kingdom of Alexandria - Former Legislator, Privy Councillor of State for Home Affairs (Citizenship, Guides and Integration Offiical), Administrator
Gadzooks, Siwale! Really stunned to hear you say that. I would not have expected it from a nation who has access to the SC application discussions. Is your concern about this particular applicant's qualifications or the SC application review process itself?
Bootsie is right in that each application is considered individually. As I see it, it is the SC's responsibility to the region to nominate only nations we would trust with the delegacy. (Not necessarily those we think would make a good delegate, for that is a separate, albeit related, matter.) So my first consideration is always, "If this player gets the in-game delegacy, will they start ejecting nations?" If they have already served as delegate or VD, then that's unlikely. I mean, odds are if they were going to go rogue they would do it while in office. Plus someone the region elects already has the confidence of the electorate. Other applicant pose a higher degree of risk, and so we do a more careful review. We ask questions, we look at post histories, length of time in the region, previous TNP experience, experience in other regions, and references. Just being friends with the right people is NOT going to tick all the boxes.
Bootsie is right in that each application is considered individually. As I see it, it is the SC's responsibility to the region to nominate only nations we would trust with the delegacy. (Not necessarily those we think would make a good delegate, for that is a separate, albeit related, matter.) So my first consideration is always, "If this player gets the in-game delegacy, will they start ejecting nations?" If they have already served as delegate or VD, then that's unlikely. I mean, odds are if they were going to go rogue they would do it while in office. Plus someone the region elects already has the confidence of the electorate. Other applicant pose a higher degree of risk, and so we do a more careful review. We ask questions, we look at post histories, length of time in the region, previous TNP experience, experience in other regions, and references. Just being friends with the right people is NOT going to tick all the boxes.
I agree with Bootsie, we need some new blood on the Council. Artemis has contributed a lot to us without being Delegate and Vice Delegate and could continue to be if Artemis becomes a Security Councillor. I am not sure if this has been asked or answered however I would like to ask a question. The Dispatch about the Security Council explains:
Also I noticed you listed your positions in other regions but I would like to ask what type of positions have you had in another region that is like TNP's SC if any and if you have, how have you ensure that you stayed to your word to protect that region from external threats?
Will you protect us against external threats to our Democracy and if so, how?Endorse The Security Council:
Also I noticed you listed your positions in other regions but I would like to ask what type of positions have you had in another region that is like TNP's SC if any and if you have, how have you ensure that you stayed to your word to protect that region from external threats?
Last edited:
I’ve seen Artimes in TNP for so long, they are one of the most amazing TNP roleplayers and culture ministers. They love TNP and protecting the community. This is coming from someone who (iirc) had disagreements(arguments) with artimes years ago (and I don’t know them that well) but I still notice and believe Artimes has integrity and is one of the most dedicated individuals to work for TNP, and Artimes a very trustworthy individual. (And understands OPSEC.) The security council trusts artimes. Thanks for reading.
Working in conjunction with other members of the Security Council, I will do everything in my power to ensure a secure and stable TNP. This is done through careful watching of individuals who are recklessly gathering endorsements, ensuring the stable transfer of the Delegacy, and securing the Delegacy in times of instability.
Many of the other regions I was involved in were secure in the fact that I was able to be in constant contact with the Founder, access to the founder account, or was the Founder. There were times that we were tag raided but never dealt with attempts to coup the delegacy. Ultimately the best defence at our disposal was the founder account.
Thank you for the support Yuno <3
Artemis is good people. Full support here.
Nou <3
Having served two terms as Vice Delegate, as well as working closely with the Security Council throughout these past two terms as Delegate, I believe I have a very good understanding of how the Security Council works. Part of the reason I decided to raise these concerns, rather than wait for another RA member to do so, is because I cannot be so easily discredited by the classic "you aren't in the SC and therefore wouldn't understand" argument.
The idea that some SC members are more vocal than others, which impacts the direction the SC takes as a whole, is not a far-fetched one. We see this occur among all areas of government, even within the Regional Assembly. It’s largely human nature and should be expected to some extent. So yes, I do believe McM’s past personal history with Artemis outside of TNP could have helped this applicant stand out.
We seem to be focusing too much on past positions held, rather than activity level in each of these offices. I would argue that a consistent level of activity in TNP is far more important than the number of government positions held. Anyone can be appointed or elected to a government position, but far fewer members actually thrive in these positions.
The practice of accepting applicants on the basis of the number and type of government positions held in the past is a major contributor to the dangerously low activity levels observed by some of the current members of the Council. We have at least two SCers who are barely active enough to maintain the legal requirements for government officials. I find it difficult to believe that those specific Councilors, who infrequently interact with the community that they serve, will be of much use if a security crisis were to arise. In an effort to reduce the likelihood of more inactive members, we should be cautious with who we accept to serve indefinitely on the SC. It is much easier to block an application than to recall a sitting SCer.
I have searched through public forums to measure Artemis’s activity level in each of their government positions. Since there is often behind the scenes work involved as well, I encourage the applicant to expand on the list below, as appropriate:
As a Deputy Speaker:
~ Processed 10 rounds of citizenship applications since Oct 14th
~ Conducted 0 checks on current citizens since Oct 14th
~ Facilitated 0 RA votes since Oct 14th
As a Minister of Culture:
~ Ran a few more rounds of the Lennart Awards started under the previous administration
~ Resigned a little over 3 weeks into the term due to RL commitments
As a Election Commissioner:
~ Supervised 2 elections since June 10th
~ Chief Election Commissioner for the past 2 months (term ends tomorrow)
As an endotarter (not a government position, but still pretty important for this application):
~ 532 endorsements collected after 7 months of endorsement gathering (most of these collected very early on in his WA membership and tapering off until mid-September)
In summary:
Do I think Artemis is trustworthy?
Of course. I would never have appointed him to the Election Commission or voted for him as Chief Election Commissioner if I believed otherwise. Artemis has demonstrated that he has TNP’s best interests at heart.
Do I think Artemis will be an active and engaged member of the Security Council?
I don’t see enough concrete evidence from his past positions and other involvements in TNP to suggest that Artemis would satisfy the level of activity required for the SC. Sure, he will likely show up for SC votes and discussions, but being a Security Councillor involves so much more than that. It involves continued community engagement, constant observation and reporting, and rapid detection and response in the event of a security crisis. It’s true that not all of the current members meet this desired activity level, but I don’t think we should keep brushing this problem under the rug and bringing on more members who will potentially add to, and continue to normalize, the SC’s inactivity trend.
The Security Council is NOT a badge of honor, it is a government position which requires continued activity and community engagement. Over the past few years, the informal requirements for SC admission have shifted from an even balance between integrity and activity to almost entirely integrity-based, demonstrated through high-ranking government positions. Because of this, we have accepted applicants who were inactive from the start of their term, re-accepted applicants who were removed after failing to meet the activity requirements established by law, and continued to keep SCers on-board who became inactive over time. This informal policy has also led to the denial of applicants who continue to be engaged and trusted members of our community.
The idea that some SC members are more vocal than others, which impacts the direction the SC takes as a whole, is not a far-fetched one. We see this occur among all areas of government, even within the Regional Assembly. It’s largely human nature and should be expected to some extent. So yes, I do believe McM’s past personal history with Artemis outside of TNP could have helped this applicant stand out.
We seem to be focusing too much on past positions held, rather than activity level in each of these offices. I would argue that a consistent level of activity in TNP is far more important than the number of government positions held. Anyone can be appointed or elected to a government position, but far fewer members actually thrive in these positions.
The practice of accepting applicants on the basis of the number and type of government positions held in the past is a major contributor to the dangerously low activity levels observed by some of the current members of the Council. We have at least two SCers who are barely active enough to maintain the legal requirements for government officials. I find it difficult to believe that those specific Councilors, who infrequently interact with the community that they serve, will be of much use if a security crisis were to arise. In an effort to reduce the likelihood of more inactive members, we should be cautious with who we accept to serve indefinitely on the SC. It is much easier to block an application than to recall a sitting SCer.
I have searched through public forums to measure Artemis’s activity level in each of their government positions. Since there is often behind the scenes work involved as well, I encourage the applicant to expand on the list below, as appropriate:
As a Deputy Speaker:
~ Processed 10 rounds of citizenship applications since Oct 14th
~ Conducted 0 checks on current citizens since Oct 14th
~ Facilitated 0 RA votes since Oct 14th
As a Minister of Culture:
~ Ran a few more rounds of the Lennart Awards started under the previous administration
~ Resigned a little over 3 weeks into the term due to RL commitments
As a Election Commissioner:
~ Supervised 2 elections since June 10th
~ Chief Election Commissioner for the past 2 months (term ends tomorrow)
As an endotarter (not a government position, but still pretty important for this application):
~ 532 endorsements collected after 7 months of endorsement gathering (most of these collected very early on in his WA membership and tapering off until mid-September)
In summary:
Do I think Artemis is trustworthy?
Of course. I would never have appointed him to the Election Commission or voted for him as Chief Election Commissioner if I believed otherwise. Artemis has demonstrated that he has TNP’s best interests at heart.
Do I think Artemis will be an active and engaged member of the Security Council?
I don’t see enough concrete evidence from his past positions and other involvements in TNP to suggest that Artemis would satisfy the level of activity required for the SC. Sure, he will likely show up for SC votes and discussions, but being a Security Councillor involves so much more than that. It involves continued community engagement, constant observation and reporting, and rapid detection and response in the event of a security crisis. It’s true that not all of the current members meet this desired activity level, but I don’t think we should keep brushing this problem under the rug and bringing on more members who will potentially add to, and continue to normalize, the SC’s inactivity trend.
The Security Council is NOT a badge of honor, it is a government position which requires continued activity and community engagement. Over the past few years, the informal requirements for SC admission have shifted from an even balance between integrity and activity to almost entirely integrity-based, demonstrated through high-ranking government positions. Because of this, we have accepted applicants who were inactive from the start of their term, re-accepted applicants who were removed after failing to meet the activity requirements established by law, and continued to keep SCers on-board who became inactive over time. This informal policy has also led to the denial of applicants who continue to be engaged and trusted members of our community.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I'm surprised by this characterisation of the admittance of Artemis as being due to a supposed "BFF" status with Artemis. While I am sure the Delegate didn't mean to suggest that Artemis was only admitted due to his personal friendship with me, it is understandably, being read that way, and I will clarify my own position accordingly.
I would say that I have never advanced someone's application to the Security Council based upon friendship or otherwise personal motivations. It is absolutely true that the Security Council considers how well we know a person when deciding to admit them or not, I do not see how we could evaluate their application without doing so.
The requirements are codified into law. They're not the only factors we consider. I personally take into account the following:
- Reliability;
- Trustworthiness/honesty;
- Activity;
- Government service;
- Standing in the community;
- The applicants self confidence; and
- The opinion of other councillors.
Each security council member will review the applicant against their own opinion and any other factors they deem relevant. If we reject an applicant or otherwise choose not to act on it, the applicant can take it to the assembly to have it dealt with there.
I am confident that Artemis meets both the legal requirements and my own personal requirements, which is why I spoke in favour of Artemis' application to the Security Council.
I am one of the most active members of the Security Council currently. That means that yes, I am more vocal than others. That yes, I participate more often in the discussion of admitting members than some others do. There is the implication here that me being more vocal is a bad thing, which I reject. The alternative would be for me not to participate at all or to be more inactive.
Despite my activity or the fact that I am "more vocal", there is little chance that I would be able to railroad the SC - made up of people with the courage of their own convictions, into supporting someone, they did not in fact think was suitable.
I would also state that in the case of Artemis, I had not even realised they had applied until Vice Delegate Pallaith got quite rightly annoyed at the SC members who had not responded - including me. Artemis never told me he was going to apply or that he had in fact applied.
I do not see serving on the Security Council as a badge of honour. In fact, more often than not, I see it as an obligation given my time and influence (in-game) here. Many other councillors feel the same way.
We recognise also that we need more energy, enthusiasm, and activity in the Council. It is my sincere hope that by admitting someone as motivated as Artemis we can work towards this goal.
I supported Artemis because I trust him. I have found that he is reliable and hardworking. I believe that he is confident and honourable and will speak up to anyone if he believes they are wrong. Yes, he resigned as Minister of Culture. However, he did so, knowing that he was going to have activity problems due to an unexpected work commitment. I do not cast any aspersions against him for stepping up and addressing the issue before it came a problem. That takes guts. It is far more rarer than having someone simply vanish because they cannot face the music. I don't hold that against him or any other applicant.
For other applicants I have personally voted against or voiced my concerns about, it is because they have not met the factors I set out earlier, not because I am not friends with them.
I would say that I have never advanced someone's application to the Security Council based upon friendship or otherwise personal motivations. It is absolutely true that the Security Council considers how well we know a person when deciding to admit them or not, I do not see how we could evaluate their application without doing so.
The requirements are codified into law. They're not the only factors we consider. I personally take into account the following:
- Reliability;
- Trustworthiness/honesty;
- Activity;
- Government service;
- Standing in the community;
- The applicants self confidence; and
- The opinion of other councillors.
Each security council member will review the applicant against their own opinion and any other factors they deem relevant. If we reject an applicant or otherwise choose not to act on it, the applicant can take it to the assembly to have it dealt with there.
I am confident that Artemis meets both the legal requirements and my own personal requirements, which is why I spoke in favour of Artemis' application to the Security Council.
I am one of the most active members of the Security Council currently. That means that yes, I am more vocal than others. That yes, I participate more often in the discussion of admitting members than some others do. There is the implication here that me being more vocal is a bad thing, which I reject. The alternative would be for me not to participate at all or to be more inactive.
Despite my activity or the fact that I am "more vocal", there is little chance that I would be able to railroad the SC - made up of people with the courage of their own convictions, into supporting someone, they did not in fact think was suitable.
I would also state that in the case of Artemis, I had not even realised they had applied until Vice Delegate Pallaith got quite rightly annoyed at the SC members who had not responded - including me. Artemis never told me he was going to apply or that he had in fact applied.
I do not see serving on the Security Council as a badge of honour. In fact, more often than not, I see it as an obligation given my time and influence (in-game) here. Many other councillors feel the same way.
We recognise also that we need more energy, enthusiasm, and activity in the Council. It is my sincere hope that by admitting someone as motivated as Artemis we can work towards this goal.
I supported Artemis because I trust him. I have found that he is reliable and hardworking. I believe that he is confident and honourable and will speak up to anyone if he believes they are wrong. Yes, he resigned as Minister of Culture. However, he did so, knowing that he was going to have activity problems due to an unexpected work commitment. I do not cast any aspersions against him for stepping up and addressing the issue before it came a problem. That takes guts. It is far more rarer than having someone simply vanish because they cannot face the music. I don't hold that against him or any other applicant.
For other applicants I have personally voted against or voiced my concerns about, it is because they have not met the factors I set out earlier, not because I am not friends with them.
Not every Councilor is as active as some are, but I will assure you, Mr. Delegate, that should you decide this evening to coup, within the next update, we’d have the entire Council together and ready to take the region back. Just a few months ago, Great Bights Mum was not as involved as she is now. She missed many votes, and she has found herself off of the Council multiple times. We could always reach out to her though, whether that be by forum PM or by her personal contact information.
And since you’re so enthusiastic of calling me out, I’ll admit that I did get removed from the Council for inactivity, 15 days of inactivity in fact, but you know what, I was readmitted. It wasn’t because I was an oligarch, it wasn’t because I can endotart better than my fellow citizens, and it wasn’t because of my times as Minister or being Chief of Staff under Lord Ravenclaw. It’s cause I know my shit. I’ve been on the frontlines as Lazarus became the New Lazarene Order, and Osiris fell into the hands of Cormac. I’ve served as an advisor to many Delegates and have met foreign leaders, so I know what to be cautious of in a potential rogue Delegate. I’m well aware of the thanklessness of my role, and I don’t know anyone on this Council that treats this role as a "badge of honor" and I don’t think Artemis will treat it as one either.
As previously stated, applicants are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We look at activity, involvement in the region, their overall demeanor, and trustworthiness. Artemis does check the boxes for these traits, and so he makes perfect sense as a Security Councilor. Also, if these applicants are engaged and trusted members of our community then perhaps there was a reason they were rejected, and I think you should personally follow-up with these applicants to see if they fixed what we suggested they fix. Lord Lore probably knows more than any other current Councilor that not everyone gets accepted the first time, and there is always a reason we deny applicants, other than "we weren’t buddies with them".
Each of the Security Councilors is free-thinking, and even though McMasterdonia was fully into the applicant, some of us, including myself, had to be persuaded. I don’t think your judgement of the situation is accurate, and is a bit unsettling, especially for someone in the Delegate’s seat.
As someone who has literally no gain from Artemis joining our ranks, I will continue to fight for him.
Last edited:
I also find this disturbing, in addition to the lengths the delegate is seemingly willing to go to to slander Artemis and impugn their qualifications. Now, if it wasn't obvious before, we all know the delegate has no clue what he's gotten himself into here.
Full support for Artemis on my end.
Full support for Artemis on my end.
Regarding my duties as Deputy Speaker, only until this past week has the Speaker asked their deputies to perform checks on current citizens. We perform these checks on the citizenship spreadsheet for the Speaker to post on the forum.
As to RA Votes, this is once again a duty that the Speaker has not delegated to his Deputies.
As Minister of Culture, I concur that I was not able to achieve as much as I would have liked during my term. In RL I was offered a full-time position shortly after taking the role as Minister of Culture. The job position was not something that I had applied for but one that was offered to me as a recent graduate of college. This is one thing I heavily believe in and that is when to know to say you can not continue in your current position. I ask you, would you rather have someone who remains in their position and disappears on you or someone who has the strength to say that they can no longer continue in their position for the betterment of the region. I saw that I would not be able to continue in my position as MiniCult without harming the ministry and the region.
As Election Commissioner, I have had 5 opportunities to supervise elections and in that time I supervised 3 elections, the July Judicial Election, the July Special Vice-Delegate Election, and the Reopened September General Election (held in October).
As to endorsement gathering, these endorsements were gathered without sending telegrams to other nations and without asking others to endorse me. Had I actively message members who have not endorsed me, I am sure that my endorsement counts would be much higher. These were gathered without being the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, SC member, or any other high profile government position.
I would like to clarify that my original post was not meant to imply that Artemis was nominated simply because he is a friend of McM's, however, I understand how it could be interpreted that way. I apologize for not being clearer. The intent behind my original post was to highlight that Artemis has a very similar TNP political record as those rejected from the SC before him (a good example of this would be OwenStacey). Therefore, it is reasonable to postulate that Artemis's performance in other regions could have helped this candidate stand out and obtain a nomination from the SC. In a TNP security position, I fail to see how outside performance would be a relevant factor in determining an individual's willingness and ability to serve this region.
McM's personal friendship with Artemis is not the real meat of my argument; the inactivity of the SC is. Even McM alluded to this in his post when mentioning the VD's frustration with the lack of activity on Artemis's application discussion thread. If members of the Council are unavailable to even weigh in on potential future colleagues, I fail to see how they would be active enough to preserve democracy in TNP in the event of a crisis. With the current activity level of the SC, we need to be extremely careful with who we admit. We don't want to add to the inactivity problem and make it even harder to address.
I don't believe McM being vocal is a bad thing. In fact, all SC members should be just as vocal as he is. However, with the current arrangement, having only a few vocal members increases the potential for one-sided arguments where the pros and cons are not comprehensively addressed. I seem to be taking a lot of heat for spending the time to go through this application in detail and assure all pros and cons are addressed. I'm quite surprised to see this response, considering the RA is the body who ultimately determines whether an applicant gets admitted to the SC indefinitely. The SC's nomination serves to lowers the criteria for admittance through the RA, NOT to determine an applicant's fate in the RA. If we were to follow whatever the SC says on applications, where do the checks and balances lie? Why not just eliminate the RA confirmation vote entirely?
Last edited:
Siwale has already addressed your statement on a lack of knowledge on how the SC works.
However, I most definitely do not know the inner workings of the SC. As such, for those of use in the dark, do you mind explaining how coming from the UCR sphere is an asset?
Slander? Where did Siwale slander Artemis?
While I have not been around for the past few months, I do believe my mathematic ability has not elapsed. However, if I have made a mistake and January 2015 is just "a few months ago" do let me know.
Given a discussion is occurring, I believe it is far too soon to move for a vote. At the time of this post there was no realistic opportunity for Siwale to respond to the other posts in the intervening time (and he has since responded). I doubt this matter is time sensitive so I see no rush to vote. Given an indefinite term length of Security Councillors I think it is appropriate to give time for the RA to hash this out.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/Them
- TNP Nation
- Bobberino
- Discord
- Bobberino#6969
I'm leaning in favour. Through working with him in the Speaker's office, I can say with confidence he's contributed in a tangible way to both that body and the region. Had it not been for him and Pry I'd still be in the dark about Speaker checks. In addition, St George and Syrixia make a good point. Artemis's qualifications here are quite tangible, whether the rawest of raw numbers dictate that or not. Numbers won't tell you the full story. As a citizen that's been here since March who's been semi-active the whole way through, I think I've seen enough. I plan to vote for.
Regarding the SC process, I cannot emphasize enough that each application is reviewed individually. Since no two resumes are alike, it isn't really useful to compare and contrast candidates. Unlike an election, nations are not competing against one another for a spot on the SC. I have never, ever discounted an otherwise qualified applicant because I thought the SC didn't need any new members.
Personally, I think activity in other regions can be a positive thing when looking at a nation's level of experience as a whole. It can also be a negative thing if other regions have claims on that nation's loyalties. These are the two main reasons I ask about past experience.
There is an expectation that SC members will commit to serving for a long period of time. We look for stability - someone who wants to be delegate in another region is not going to be able to make that commitment. Someone who prefers military activity is not going to be a good fit. For every long-serving Councillor, there will come periods when activity wanes. That's just life. But Bootsie is right, if there is ever a crisis we will ramp it up to all-night marathon levels. That's what we're here for.
Personally, I think activity in other regions can be a positive thing when looking at a nation's level of experience as a whole. It can also be a negative thing if other regions have claims on that nation's loyalties. These are the two main reasons I ask about past experience.
There is an expectation that SC members will commit to serving for a long period of time. We look for stability - someone who wants to be delegate in another region is not going to be able to make that commitment. Someone who prefers military activity is not going to be a good fit. For every long-serving Councillor, there will come periods when activity wanes. That's just life. But Bootsie is right, if there is ever a crisis we will ramp it up to all-night marathon levels. That's what we're here for.
I believe you’re taking a lot of heat because you’re trying to turn a Security Councilor’s application into a platform by which to address the Security Council’s inactivity instead of why Artemis is or isn’t worthy to be on the Council.
Feeders are much more stable and less likely (though definitely possible) to coup. I think having some members who know how to balance the Delegacy and defend against much larger forces is helpful to have, especially when contrasted with myself, who has spent most of my eight years at NationStates in a Feeder, and though I’ve helped defend against Feeder coups in the past, it is not something that I’ve come across as frequently as someone in a UCR would, where if they make one wrong move, are able to just be destroyed by an invading force or rogue Delegate.
Like I said above, I don’t think Siwale is slandering Artemis, but he’s definitely throwing in topics that have nothing to do with the actual applicant.
Bless your heart, Praetor. As GBM stated, we all go through waves of activity. The few months ago is referring to when I can last remember her being very inactive, right before the transition to our new forum. Her removals may have been back in 2015, but honestly I’m not going to remember the nitty-gritty details that far back.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Nobody is saying that the RA is not intended to be a check and balance on the process. I proposed the legal change that made RA oversight a thing at all. Let’s not be hyperbolic and focus on what this is.
If you want to propose legal changes Siwale you can do so. If you want to recall SC members for inactivity, you can do so. If you want to grandstand on Artemis’ application, you can do so. I don’t think it’ll have the desired effect that is sought.
As to Siwale’s comparison to OwenStacey and Artemis. I will say this. I’m more than happy to stand here and name every reason I chose not to support Owen’s application. Including the reasons that didn’t make it to the thread and private conversations I’ve had involving that application. If you want to make the comparative argument, and that’s what you want me to do, I am more than happy to oblige.
I specifically said in the SC thread that the Owen comparison might be made to Artemis. I don’t think this is a fair comparison. I’m not convinced it would’ve been mentioned at all, had I not already raised it to the SC.
If you want to propose legal changes Siwale you can do so. If you want to recall SC members for inactivity, you can do so. If you want to grandstand on Artemis’ application, you can do so. I don’t think it’ll have the desired effect that is sought.
As to Siwale’s comparison to OwenStacey and Artemis. I will say this. I’m more than happy to stand here and name every reason I chose not to support Owen’s application. Including the reasons that didn’t make it to the thread and private conversations I’ve had involving that application. If you want to make the comparative argument, and that’s what you want me to do, I am more than happy to oblige.
I specifically said in the SC thread that the Owen comparison might be made to Artemis. I don’t think this is a fair comparison. I’m not convinced it would’ve been mentioned at all, had I not already raised it to the SC.
I completely agree this topic should remain about Artemis's SC application. When it comes to SC applications that reach the RA, the main questions I ask myself are:
1. Has the candidate demonstrated integrity and commitment towards the preservation and advancement of TNP's fundamental principles?
2. Has the candidate demonstrated a consistent level of activity throughout their time in the region? If not, what were the circumstances for the fluctuations in activity and what can we expect of them as a Security Councillor?
3. How long has the candidate been involved in TNP? Were they involved elsewhere prior to joining the region?
4. What is the current condition of the Security Council? Will the candidate strengthen the institution or add to the SC's advancing weaknesses?
5. What does the current SC see in the candidate? How does the candidate differ from the applicants before them who were either rejected or discouraged from applying? What does the candidate have in common with the applicants who were successfully admitted to the Council?
I have looked over my previous posts, and was unable to find anything irrelevant to these 5 questions. If you do find something, could you please highlight it for me so I can take corrective action moving forward?
By no means am I asking you to pick apart a former applicant. I'm asking what about Artemis stands out, especially considering that candidates with similar TNP resumes as him have been denied in the past. You, GBM, and Bootsie have all made your case for Artemis, but what are the thoughts of the other 5 SCers who voted Aye or the 1 SCer who was absent from the vote?
Last edited:
So let me ask you this then, Mr. Delegate- what stands out about Sil Dorsett? He was never Delegate or Vice Delegate- only Minister of WA Affairs. What stands out about Lord Lore? He was never Delegate or Vice Delegate either- only Minister of Culture a long while ago, as well as Cartographer of the Eras Map.
Both of them got on the council. Why are they there? Why aren't you calling them into question, Siwale? They got on the council because they had been around in TNP for a decent while, they had the endorsements and SPDR, and they wanted to join. What's so different between them and Artemis?
Don't engage in double standards, Mr. Delegate. You are slandering Artemis by doing so, in addition to going out of your way to impugn their qualifications with this quote:
You went out of your way to find specific statistics for Artemis' conduct during their term just so you could bolster your- considering what people have said in this thread so far- wildly unpopular argument (one that is also one-sided, slanderous, and completely unnecessary) in your oddly determined campaign to stop Artemis from becoming a Security Councilor when in reality there is no serious reason for them not to become one.
Mr. Delegate, your actions continue to disturb me.
(EDIT: For those who think the above post is slanderous in itself, as one person posited to me in TNPGen's citizens chat, I refer you to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)
Both of them got on the council. Why are they there? Why aren't you calling them into question, Siwale? They got on the council because they had been around in TNP for a decent while, they had the endorsements and SPDR, and they wanted to join. What's so different between them and Artemis?
Don't engage in double standards, Mr. Delegate. You are slandering Artemis by doing so, in addition to going out of your way to impugn their qualifications with this quote:
As someone who was never Deputy Speaker; who has an extremely overrated term as Minister of Culture during which non-RP matters were nigh-completely neglected; and who as an Election Commissioner supervised just as many (maybe one more, not sure) elections as Artemis and never became Chief Election Commissioner? I think Artemis' track record in the public service of this region is pretty good.Siwale:
You went out of your way to find specific statistics for Artemis' conduct during their term just so you could bolster your- considering what people have said in this thread so far- wildly unpopular argument (one that is also one-sided, slanderous, and completely unnecessary) in your oddly determined campaign to stop Artemis from becoming a Security Councilor when in reality there is no serious reason for them not to become one.
Mr. Delegate, your actions continue to disturb me.
(EDIT: For those who think the above post is slanderous in itself, as one person posited to me in TNPGen's citizens chat, I refer you to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)
Last edited:
- Discord
- COE#7110
I don't have a strong opinion on this application, but citing facts can never be construed as slander. That's just criticism. Slander involves telling a lie to damage someone, and is also a criminal act in this region.
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
- TNP Nation
- Prydania
- Discord
- lordgigaice
Siwale starting things off with his "McM's BFF" line was not the best look. The Delegate's insights into how things on the SC work is certainly appreciated, but none of the factual information he has presented disqualifies Artemis.
Same.
Sil Dorsett and LL had a much more extensive history in TNP to reflect back on. Sil has been involved in TNP since 2016, and LL since 2015. Because of this, I wouldn't consider their applications to be very comparable to Artemis. I would also like to emphasize that I do NOT agree with the notion that SCers need to be former Vice Delegates or Delegates. We have had a number of great Councillors who have not served in either of these positions. I am not suggesting that Artemis should be denied because of his lack of experience as Delegate or Vice Delegate.
I will not be addressing the rest of your post. Charges of fraud belong in the Court, not the RA.
You misinterpreted what I said. I listed two positions that are high up in the government- I could have said Chief Justice, Attorney General, et cetera. I don't agree with the notion that Security Councilors need to be former Vice Delegates or Delegates either. My point is that they don't have to be super-veterans that have served in a metric ton of high positions for a long time. We have had a number of great Councillors who have not served in these high offices or played for 6 billion years.
We need some new blood in the Council, and Artemis both fits that description and is, in my opinion, definitely qualified enough.
Last edited:
I would say my experiences in UCRs are more experience than necessarily assets. It provides me with a different way of thinking than perhaps applicants with sole GCR experiences. Something that I have learned in a UCR is consistent activity is more beneficial than bouts of massive activity and then massive inactivity. That is something I try to practice here in TNP. Ultimately it comes down to balance. Being able to balance commitments and get the job done.
As of right now, I do not have any amendments to the Security Council Procedures. This might change at a later date, but this is something I would be willing to work with those who have concerns about the SC about to encourage activity from its members.
- Pronouns
- Any/All
- TNP Nation
- Frances_Francis_the_First_of_Frances
- Discord
- Just_a_Lore
I would like to say that I find your knee jerk reaction to be concerning and frankly I would like to know exactly why you have decided to make these accusations of my character and decided to slander me by saying to this assembly that I only took into consideration their friendship status with another Councillor.
As a more cosmopolitan member of the council I like to take into an applicant's actions in other regions and if they have a well rounded resume from not just TNP but from the outside as well. And for me what I look for was checked by Artemis.
I would also like a list of the applicants you feel are just as qualified that we have rejected? Mind you in the last year the only application the SC has actively rejected is American Maplestory, the others withdrawing their applications rather then pursue it.
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
- TNP Nation
- Prydania
- Discord
- lordgigaice
Yeah, this point concerns me too.
I’ve seen the claim that “more qualified people than Artemis” have been turned down repeated, but I’m struggling to name them off the top of my head.
Upon request, below is a list of rejected or withdrawn applicants over the past 2 years which I find to have a comparable resume in TNP as Artemis. I have highlighted all past and current government positions for these individuals at the time of application, as indicated by posts in the Oath of Office thread. I’m not going to pretend to be knowledgeable enough on applications before this time, since I’ve never even met most of those people:
Owenstacey
Please note: This is NOT necessarily a list of applicants that I believe should have been admitted into the Council. Additionally, I am not asking the SC or the RA to pick apart former applications. This thread is about Artemis and what makes him worthy of an indefinite seat on the Security Council.
Owenstacey
- Deputy Speaker
- Speaker
- Deputy Minister of WA Affairs
- Deputy Minister of FA
- Temporary Hearing Officer
- Deputy Minister of Home Affairs
- Election Commissioner
- Deputy Speaker
- Minister of Home Affairs
- Deputy Minister of Culture
- Minister of Culture
- Minister of Entertainment
Please note: This is NOT necessarily a list of applicants that I believe should have been admitted into the Council. Additionally, I am not asking the SC or the RA to pick apart former applications. This thread is about Artemis and what makes him worthy of an indefinite seat on the Security Council.
- TNP Nation
- Castle in Confidence
- Discord
- .wonderess
- Status