Artemis's Security Council Application

Prydania · Dec 12, 2018

@Siwale by insisting on the point that Artemis is somehow unworthy compared to past applicants? You have, unfortunately, fostered an environment where the discussion can veer into "picking apart former applicants" and comparing them against Artemis rather then an honest discussion on Artemis' own merits as an applicant. I believe you when you say that you do not want this to happen, but the reality is that you can't raise a point and then absolve yourself of the responsibility for the effects raising that point brings. By implying "more qualified" applicants have been turned down? You create a situation whereby qualifications almost have to be debated. And again, that's on you. You raised this point of discussion.

As for Artemis? I admit, I don't know him as well as some others. I certainly can't be accused of being his "bff." I have worked with him in the Speaker's Office, however. And in working with him? I have seen first hand his positive traits that I have previously seen from afar.
He is hard working, trustworthy, committed to TNP as a region, and committed to the institutions that make TNP a region worth committing to.

These values, I feel, are more than enough to qualify him for a spot on the Security Council.

And given Artemis' track record thus far? I can understand disagreeing with the potential appointment. I would object, but I would get it. What I find baffling is the vigour you seem to be opposing this application. Whatever you think of Artemis as a candidate? He doesn't deserve to be gone after with the vehemence you've shown. Especially not given the near-unanimous support the SC themselves has shown the applicant.

I understand it's the internet. I understand that sometimes we get so focused on a point we sometimes lose ourselves in the argument and end up dying on a hill we never intended to die on. I've been there. I sympathize.
I think you owe it to yourself to make sure that's not what is happening here.

Pallaith · Dec 12, 2018

Activity is a never-ending battleground, and figuring out how to enhance it and to protect against inactivity is the defining battle of the SC as an institution. It's hardly unique to TNP, other regions with an equivalent body have the same concerns, and I daresay it's even more of a problem for them than it is for us. I don't fault Siwale for trying to keep this in mind, and to take any actions or precautions necessary to plan for this factor. I don't know if I think this is the best way to go about it, though it is not an unreasonable concern to have when an applicant makes it this far. I will also agree that as always, he has a knack for doing the research and making a strong case. It is my view that this case is largely about only one thing, and an SC appointment must consider a multitude of factors. So don't give Siwale too much of a hard time, someone has to ask the questions. This is an important thing for him, as a former Vice Delegate who fought the good fight to get the SC more active and engaged. It is not an easy fight, something I can certainly appreciate being in this role myself.

Since every member of the SC was arguably put on blast for our decision, I'll speak only for myself as far as why I voted for Artemis, but I'd like to address the SC's general point of view as I understand it. Activity was a serious concern when I joined the SC, we dropped several members and had a few who hadn't been very involved. We've come a long way since then, and I stand by the people who serve on the SC. They are not all equally around all the time, but they don't have to be. Activity is something that can always be improved, but it's not the only factor. We wanted someone who could endotart, someone who was involved in multiple areas of TNP's community, someone who had served in some capacity in government that we could see how they would perform with some responsibility. SC members have to be trustworthy, and the only way to build trust is to be tested and to have a record that can be evaluated. People who haven't done much or haven't been around long just cannot demonstrate that. That being said, even that isn't sufficient, because someone could have a record to evaluate without any of us actually being able to get a sense for who that person is. Someone can be strong on paper and still be an unknown as far as who they are as an individual, and the SC is not going to be able to serve with someone they do not know, even if they have heard of that person before and that person is a public figure.

I helped draft the SC recommendations for applicants, which we posted in the original post of the application thread. It is:

In addition to the formal requirements for becoming a member of the Security Council, all prospective applicants should take into consideration additional factors that are also important to whether or not the Security Council will approve an application. Prospective applicants should demonstrate commitment to all parts of The North Pacific's community, gameside and offsite. Government service, either in the executive staff or in the cabinet, and particularly elected office, are great opportunities to demonstrate that commitment. Consistent and regular presence on the forum, in the RMB, in Discord, are also important to help the Security Council get a sense for who the applicant is, and to build trust. The longer the applicant has been involved in this way, the better, as it gives the Council more to work with and to consider. If the first time you show up on the Council's radar is your application to join them, you will almost certainly not be accepted.

It was my opinion that Artemis demonstrated all of the above. Furthermore, several members of the SC have worked with him and have gotten to know who he is in the process. Nevertheless, not everyone on the SC had that experience. For this reason I presented a series of questions to Artemis which he answered at length and to my satisfaction. The other SC members likely agreed, as they gave him his vote as well. On top of all of that, Artemis is obviously an active participant in TNP politics and I do not expect that to change the moment he becomes a member of the SC.

Just a Lore · Dec 12, 2018

Siwale:
Owenstacey

Deputy Speaker

Speaker

Deputy Minister of WA Affairs

Deputy Minister of FA

Temporary Hearing Officer

Siwale

Deputy Minister of Home Affairs

Election Commissioner

Deputy Speaker

Minister of Home Affairs

Lord Lore (round 2)

Deputy Minister of Culture

Minister of Culture

Minister of Entertainment

Since you replied to me without replying to me I just want to respond to it.

Owenstacy applied to the SC right after being removed from multiple positions for abandonment of office.

My own 1-3 applications I honestly understand why I was not accepted and I was a bit of a mess for a while I took some high profile times off due to RL problems and I abandoned an office or two. It took me years to rebuild the trust that people had in me in my first year and I finally made it.

Putting yourself on a list of people who would be better to add? are you saying that you should be on the SC instead of Artemis. Because if so dear god that is self-serving to a degree that I have never seen before.

Great Bights Mum · Dec 12, 2018

Siwale did not say the list was "of people who would be better to add." These are nations with similar resumes, as requested. And Pallaith explained so well above - a nation's resume is one of the things taken into account, but there are other factors as well.

Lord Lore:
are you saying that you should be on the SC instead of Artemis

There is no "instead of." There is not a fixed number of seats. One nation's acceptance does not occur to the exclusion of another's. There is no competition.

Haor Chall · Dec 12, 2018

It must be said that the Delegate is acting rather unbecoming of his office in this thread.

I don't know Artemis well enough to make a properly informed opinion of this nomination, but I certainly have seen nothing in this thread which provides a sound argument against it.

Siwale · Dec 12, 2018

Prydania:
@Siwale by insisting on the point that Artemis is somehow unworthy compared to past applicants? You have, unfortunately, fostered an environment where the discussion can veer into "picking apart former applicants" and comparing them against Artemis rather then an honest discussion on Artemis' own merits as an applicant. I believe you when you say that you do not want this to happen, but the reality is that you can't raise a point and then absolve yourself of the responsibility for the effects raising that point brings. By implying "more qualified" applicants have been turned down? You create a situation whereby qualifications almost have to be debated. And again, that's on you. You raised this point of discussion.

As for Artemis? I admit, I don't know him as well as some others. I certainly can't be accused of being his "bff." I have worked with him in the Speaker's Office, however. And in working with him? I have seen first hand his positive traits that I have previously seen from afar.
He is hard working, trustworthy, committed to TNP as a region, and committed to the institutions that make TNP a region worth committing to.

These values, I feel, are more than enough to qualify him for a spot on the Security Council.

And given Artemis' track record thus far? I can understand disagreeing with the potential appointment. I would object, but I would get it. What I find baffling is the vigour you seem to be opposing this application. Whatever you think of Artemis as a candidate? He doesn't deserve to be gone after with the vehemence you've shown. Especially not given the near-unanimous support the SC themselves has shown the applicant.

I understand it's the internet. I understand that sometimes we get so focused on a point we sometimes lose ourselves in the argument and end up dying on a hill we never intended to die on. I've been there. I sympathize.
I think you owe it to yourself to make sure that's not what is happening here.

Throughout this discussion, my references to past applicants have been made to challenge the SC's informal application requirements. The SC emphasizes that government service is a major factor in determining an applicants fate, yet we have multiple applicants with similar TNP resumes who were unanimously denied a nomination, while Artemis was unanimously nominated. I do not find it unreasonable to ask the SC what they saw in this applicant and fail to see how the answer to this question needs to involve picking apart former applicants. I chose to provided a list of former applicants, upon request by members of the RA, to demonstrate that my claims contained supporting evidence. I would like to thank GBM, Bootsie, Pallaith, Lord Lore, and McM for providing the RA with their reasoning for nominating this SC applicant. But the SC is currently a body of 9 individuals, not 5. I encourage ALL members of the Council to come share their reasoning with the RA.

As this RA vote will determine whether an individual gets a seat on the Security Council indefinitely, I do not find my line of questioning to be unreasonable. I have not made any attacks on Artemis's character and certainly have NOT "slandered" him as some individuals have previously alluded to. If anyone finds anything that I have said in this thread to meet this description, please highlight it for me. I have already apologized for my first post, since I understand how it could have been misinterpreted. If anyone finds anything I have said in this thread to be a criminal offense, please present it to the court. I am not above the law and will not pretend to be.

I would like to reiterate that the SC does have a major inactivity problem and there is no easy way to fix it. However, one thing we can do about it right now is ensure that SC applicants presented to the RA meet ALL of the criteria likely to make them a successful SCer. If there is any doubt, it is not unreasonable to have the applicant reapply at a later date.

Lord Lore:
Since you replied to me without replying to me I just want to respond to it.

Owenstacy applied to the SC right after being removed from multiple positions for abandonment of office.

My own 1-3 applications I honestly understand why I was not accepted and I was a bit of a mess for a while I took some high profile times off due to RL problems and I abandoned an office or two. It took me years to rebuild the trust that people had in me in my first year and I finally made it.

Putting yourself on a list of people who would be better to add? are you saying that you should be on the SC instead of Artemis. Because if so dear god that is self-serving to a degree that I have never seen before.

It appears the entirety of my quoted post did not make it onto your reply. I do believe these components are vital to understanding the intent and explanation behind this generated list:

Siwale:
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:

Siwale:
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.

Prydania · Dec 12, 2018

Siwale:
I do not find it unreasonable to ask the SC what they saw in this applicant and fail to see how the answer to this question needs to involve picking apart former applicants.

I do not feel like you can raise the spectre of passed failed applications during a discussion of an unrelated application and then wash your hands of responsibility by claiming you don’t want comparisons to be made. Comparisons which would invite the picking apart of past applications.

Siwale:
I have not made any attacks on Artemis's character and certainly have NOT "slandered" him as some individuals have previously alluded to.

I never said you slandered Artemis. I have said, and I stand by this, is that whatever you think of Artemis’ qualifications? He does not deserve the venomous attack you have decided to direct at his application.

To me? I look for trust first and foremost in SC applicants. After that? Commitment to jobs they’ve agreed to do thus far- ie commitment.

To me? Artemis fulfills both qualifications. Nothing presented in this thread has given me reason to doubt their fitness to serve. Especially given the SC’s near-unanimous support.

Praetor · Dec 12, 2018

St George:
I find the vehemence with which the delegate is against the almost unanimous decision of the Security Council very disturbing.

I was not aware the Regional Assembly was supposed to just follow the Security Council. Full support in that case I guess?

bootsie:
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.

Thank you for your answer Madam Security Councillor, however, I remain confused.

GCRs are more stable than UCRs? As aforementioned, I do not have the experience you do so I am quite beffudled. The vast majority of UCRs are foundered; indeed, from what I can tell, the majority of the UCRs (if not all) Artemis was/is in have founders. In some cases, quite active founders (I know one of them stayed online at update to watch in case of tag attempts). In a GCR, as a defender, I find it much more likely one wrong move can topple you than in a UCR where you may have more protection given their have mechanical advantages GCRs do not have. Can you elaborate further?

Which topics is Siwale bringing up that are not relevant to the applicant?

Syrixia:
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: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.

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)

In case my question was missed (which you did not answer), are you able to clarify precisely how the Mr. Delegate slandered Artemis?

Additionally, posting a link to wikipedia is hardly addressing concerns regarding how your post addresses Mr. Delegate.

Syrixia:
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.

What specifically do you mean by new blood here? And why do we need "new blood"?

Artemis:
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.

How were your experiences different in a UCR than were you to be in a GCR? How does that translate to the position of Security Councillor?

When you are referring to activity are you referring to activity as an individual or activity as a region?

St George · Dec 12, 2018

Praetor:
I was not aware the Regional Assembly was supposed to just follow the Security Council. Full support in that case I guess?.

As I have previously said in this very topic.

And in general, the Regional Assembly does indeed follow the will of the Security Council in these matters. Certainly, proposed members of the Council have been approved by the RA with a less glowing vote from the SC.

And the vehemence of the delegate is concerning in general, considering his only input in every Security Council application subject since he joined has been to make motions to vote, or to second them, aside from one time where he raised a concern about Bootsie's then recent resignation from the SC when they were applied to return.

Prydania · Dec 12, 2018

Praetor:
I was not aware the Regional Assembly was supposed to just follow the Security Council. Full support in that case I guess?

Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? Despite Siwale going on about how Artemis is somehow not up to snuff? I’ve yet to see any actual argument put forth that disqualifies him.

He’s trustworthy, hard working, and committed to the region. It’s good enough for me. And if it’s good enough for seven of eight voting members of the SC? Ok then.

That’s a tough hill for an argument to be made against, and I’m not convinced you or Siwale has come close to scaling said hill.

Just a lot of vehement bluster that I feel is uncalled for, at least in the case of the Delegate.

Siwale · Dec 12, 2018

St George:
And the vehemence of the delegate is concerning in general, considering his only input in every Security Council application subject since he joined has been to make motions to vote, or to second them, aside from one time where he raised a concern about Bootsie's then recent resignation from the SC when they were applied to return.

The only new applications that I have observed during my time here, besides Artemis's, have been during my terms as Vice Delegate. As the one charged with facilitating these applicant discussions and voting in the SC, as well as presenting the nomination to the RA, I chose to remain publicly neutral on these applicants and abstained from voting. This was my own personal policy which I followed, given my role at the time.

I will continue to reiterate that this is not a personal attack on Artemis. I think Artemis is certainly a trustworthy individual and an asset to TNP. My concern is with the limited evidence available for Artemis to support a high level of activity. I have seen firsthand the condition of the Security Council, and do believe the RA should take tremendous caution with SC applications to ensure they are not adding to the inactivity problem.

Praetor · Dec 12, 2018

St George:
As I have previously said in this very topic.

And in general, the Regional Assembly does indeed follow the will of the Security Council in these matters. Certainly, proposed members of the Council have been approved by the RA with a less glowing vote from the SC.

And the vehemence of the delegate is concerning in general, considering his only input in every Security Council application subject since he joined has been to make motions to vote, or to second them, aside from one time where he raised a concern about Bootsie's then recent resignation from the SC when they were applied to return.

These are both strange arguments and while I will most likely vote for the Artemis to gain a position on the Security Council it will most certainly not be for these reasons.

The first argument that since historically the Regional Assembly has followed the Security Council does not mean it should currently follow the Security Council absent a logical argument such (which I do not see a presentation nor an attempted presentation of any such argument).

The second argument that because a citizen is diverging from a past position they should not be raising their concerns is bizarre. People evolve and their views change over time. I do not think Siwale's previous position invalidates his current position.

Prydania:
Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? Despite Siwale going on about how Artemis is somehow not up to snuff? I’ve yet to see any actual argument put forth that disqualifies him.

He’s trustworthy, hard working, and committed to the region. It’s good enough for me. And if it’s good enough for seven of eight voting members of the SC? Ok then.

That’s a tough hill for an argument to be made against, and I’m not convinced you or Siwale has come close to scaling said hill.

Just a lot of vehement bluster that I feel is uncalled for, at least in the case of the Delegate.

But I am not arguing Artemis should not be on the Council..? I'm arguing that arguments other people are putting forth are not convincing arguments with the exception of a few, eg. Ghost (surprisingly).

That being said, I think to varying degrees each individual has a certain standard for which SC applicants must pass to have their support. Now apparently, it would seem the degree of hard working you and Siwale put emphasis on. However, I see no need to discuss that issue of which one of you has the better standard.

Prydania · Dec 12, 2018

Praetor:
Now apparently, it would seem the degree of hard working you and Siwale put emphasis on. However, I see no need to discuss that issue of which one of you has the better standard.

No need for a discussion when your passive-aggressiveness is well-noted. And unappreciated.

As to our standards? I'm shocked as to the degree to which Siwale has opted to oppose this. And I find the standards he set to not be unrealistically high, but rather arbitrary.

Thank you for attempting to paint me as someone who has low standards though

Praetor:
I'm arguing that arguments other people are putting forth are not convincing arguments with the exception of a few, eg. Ghost (surprisingly).

I find that all of the SC members who have posted have only reinforced my positive first impressions of the application. I'm sorry YOU find them unconvincing. I suppose you just have higher standards than I do

But I am not arguing Artemis should not be on the Council..?

I find Siwale's insistence in this matter be rather poor form given his office, and I find the act of carrying water for that behaviour should be pointed out.

Siwale:
I have seen firsthand the condition of the Security Council, and do believe the RA should take tremendous caution with SC applications to ensure they are not adding to the inactivity problem.

You have yet to provide a convincing argument as to why he shouldn't be elevated to the SC. Certainly nothing that challenges the arguments in Artemis' favour put forth by the SC members themselves.

Praetor · Dec 12, 2018

Prydania:
No need for a discussion when your passive-aggressiveness is well-noted. And unappreciated.

As to our standards? I'm shocked as to the degree to which Siwale has opted to oppose this. And I find the standards he set to not be unrealistically high, but rather arbitrary.

Thank you for attempting to paint me as someone who has low standards though

I find that all of the SC members who have posted have only reinforced my positive first impressions of the application. I'm sorry YOU find them unconvincing. I suppose you just have higher standards than I do

I find Siwale's insistence in this matter be rather poor form given his office, and I find the act of carrying water for that behaviour should be pointed out.

I am hardly being passive-aggressive. Some individuals may require potential SC members to be former Vice Delegate/Delegates, etc. I made no attempt to insinuate you have low standards; were I to do so I would be tarring myself with the same brush. There is no need for a discussion since I am in agreement with you. You are welcome to discuss with Siwale if you wish.

Duly noted your unappreciation for differing opinions nevertheless.

I did not state I disagree with the standards the SC was setting; rather, I disagreed with arguments other members of the RA (which includes SCers) were putting forward. Different on two different counts there (who I was disagreeing with and why).

I doubt you are sorry but I do appreciate the gesture.

I have no issue with you noting Siwale is arguing against the applicant. I have an issue with you noting I am arguing against the applicant as I am not doing that.

Prydania · Dec 12, 2018

Praetor:
Duly noted your unappreciation for differing opinions nevertheless.

"I'm not passive aggressive."
Acts passive aggressively.

If you think an inability to hear "differing opinions" is my issue here? Then you're not reading what I'm writing or being, well, passive aggressive in an attempt to coax a reaction.

Praetor:
I disagreed with arguments other members of the RA (which includes SCers) were putting forward. Different on two different counts there (who I was disagreeing with and why).

I've read your posts in this thread, and I don't find your disagreements particularly convincing. I'm with the SC members on this one.

Praetor · Dec 12, 2018

That's fine. I can't control how you think.

Oracle · Dec 12, 2018

Praetor:
How were your experiences different in a UCR than were you to be in a GCR? How does that translate to the position of Security Councillor?

When you are referring to activity are you referring to activity as an individual or activity as a region?

My experiences with security vary differently between the UCR and GRCs for an obvious reason. For the most part in my UCR experiences either A.)We had an Active Founder, B.)I was the founder or C.) I had the personal contact information of the founder to have them come to address an issue. Generally, in the case of C. I was a delegate with sufficient endorsements and influence to handle any raids we experienced.

As with much of my UCR experience, I and the regions were more focused on internal and interregional affairs due to the fact of a secure Founder/WADelegacy.

RE: Activity

I am referring to both personal activity and activity in the region. When I was a newer player I would way overload myself with activity and burnout. After a period of time, I would generate a lot of activity and then burnout once again. That was a cycle that also was evident in the regions as well, usually around elections and such. It is a lesson that I have learned in my time in NS and in life, in general, is balance. Learn to balance.

Yuno · Dec 13, 2018

Artemis:
My experiences with security vary differently between the UCR and GRCs for an obvious reason. For the most part in my UCR experiences either A.)We had an Active Founder, B.)I was the founder or C.) I had the personal contact information of the founder to have them come to address an issue. Generally, in the case of C. I was a delegate with sufficient endorsements and influence to handle any raids we experienced.

As with much of my UCR experience, I and the regions were more focused on internal and interregional affairs due to the fact of a secure Founder/WADelegacy.

RE: Activity

I am referring to both personal activity and activity in the region. When I was a newer player I would way overload myself with activity and burnout. After a period of time, I would generate a lot of activity and then burnout once again. That was a cycle that also was evident in the regions as well, usually around elections and such. It is a lesson that I have learned in my time in NS and in life, in general, is balance. Learn to balance.

(Not necessarily replying to this quote even though I quoted it, but more towards the Securty Concerns)
Regarding “security experience,” even if you lack the knowledge of game mechanics (usually attained through R/D and influence-testing,) you can easily learn it. There are many mentors. You can ask anyone from NPA Officers and above, or just ask me. It’s also not urgent knowledge to learn right away- as I doubt TNP is going to get couped anytime soon. All you need to do is maintain a high endorsement count and wait. (And take your time rehashing influence math- wouldn’t take longer than 5 minutes to understand the basics of it. It’s not that hard, and hence the “lacks security experience” argument is often the most easiest argument to remedy.)

Dinoium · Dec 15, 2018

With the discussion finally settling down, not many questions being asked, and this being in discussion for about a week. I move for a vote.

St George · Dec 15, 2018

I second, if that's needed.

Praetor · Dec 15, 2018

I third, if that's needed.

Wonderess · Dec 15, 2018

The motions have been recognized and the vote shall begin within the day and last for 4 days.

Artemis's Security Council Application

Það er alltaf sólríkt í Býkonsviði

TNPer

Eldritch Horror that Plagues Eras Cartography

Grande Dame

The Power of the Dark Side

Administrator

Það er alltaf sólríkt í Býkonsviði

Hoppin' Around

RolePlay Moderator

Það er alltaf sólríkt í Býkonsviði

Administrator

Hoppin' Around

Það er alltaf sólríkt í Býkonsviði

Hoppin' Around

Það er alltaf sólríkt í Býkonsviði

Hoppin' Around

The Disappointed Father

TNPer

Legal nerd

RolePlay Moderator

Hoppin' Around

"I will be true to you whatever comes."