Siwale's Security Council Application

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remove the motion to cancel the schedule the vote, I motion for an immediate vote.

Wonderess has acknowledged his own personal experience which I find unconvincing. He is not willing to acknowledge my second or third question. I urge all to disregard the allegations brought forward regarding Siwale.

Additionally, I would like to request @Wonderess retract his unsubstantiated comments against Siwale if he is unwilling to provide evidence or proof.
 
Well then... considering that Wonderess has said he will not be answering Praetor's questions, Mr. Speaker, I would like for you to consider my objection to a vote being scheduled withdrawn. I am now in favour of a vote being scheduled since the person who's been introducing these 'concerns' has finally admitted that he will not be saying any more on this matter and that those of us who consider his comments to be unsubstantiated lies are right to do so.

I join bootsie in saying that I'm disappointed in Wonderess, and that quite honestly I expected better. I think my fellow citizens in the Regional Assembly ought to expect better as well, and for that reasoning I see no point as to why we'd give into this delay after it's been made clear our questions won't be answered even if we do delay it.
 
While not all SC members may be aware, Wonderess has personally reached out to me on several occasions, questioning Siwale's character and community involvement. While I don't believe these concerns are enough to block Siwale's candidacy, they are enough for me to say that Wonderess has most certainly not been lying about reaching out to some SC members.
 
Madam Speaker, it is clear the concerns expressed to the SC member were simply repeated vague accusations against Siwale’s character? If anything, this shows that the Right Honourable Gentleman who does so ruthlessly oppose this motion is motivated by both an IC and OOC dislike of Siwale and has nothing of substance. Madam Speaker, I continue to urge the Right Honourable Gentleman to withdraw his unsubstantiated accusations against the good character of Siwale.
 
Last edited:
I would remind my Right Collegue McMasterdonia that the motion on the floor is to move into immediate voting on Siwale's application to the Security Council.
 
Dreadton:
I would remind my Right Collegue McMasterdonia that the motion on the floor is to move into immediate voting on Siwale's application to the Security Council.
Click to expand...
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker, I have informed the assembly that I support said motion. Nevertheless Mr Deputy Speaker, there is still an opportunity here for the Right Honourable Wonderess to withdraw his unsubstantiated accusations against the Sloth J Siwale.
 
Terrably sorry my good sir. It seems like my microphone malfunctioned. I withdraw my previous statement. I feel like a right inglorous toe rag.

@Artemis Madam Speaker, I request the current vote count on the motion for an immediate vote.
 
Last edited:
As was the case with Fiji, Wonderess discussed his concerns about matters of character and lacking community engagement with me privately, just as he reached out to other citizens along the same lines. Those conversations lead me to believe there is no serious accusation of misconduct or behavior that would lead to moderation or admin action, and certainly no such accusation was discussed or brought to the SC's attention. I personally do not believe he intended to suggest that such misconduct existed, but Wonderess has hoisted himself on his own petard by virtue of his vague comments, and neglected to set the record straight when he had a chance. If that isn't what he meant to suggest, it is only proper that he make that clear.
 
I also join the motion for an immediate vote, but mostly just because I think it's silly to have five days of additional debate after a motion to vote on a bill with no legislative text.
 
Yep. I'll join the motion for an immediate vote. I think we've all made up our minds. Let's get on with it.
 
In response to Ghost. If it is believed that I am implying that Siwale has done something worthy of review by Administration, that is incorrect. I am referring to the way by which he treats others privately which is not the best way. If there is any idea that I am suggesting something worse, then I assure you that is not the case.
 
Wonderess:
In response to Ghost. If it is believed that I am implying that Siwale has done something worthy of review by Administration, that is incorrect. I am referring to the way by which he treats others privately which is not the best way. If there is any idea that I am suggesting something worse, then I assure you that is not the case.
Click to expand...
I must once again ask you for evidence. You keep just saying this thing over and over again like a broken record. But you REFUSE to elaborate when pressed. If you are not please stop saying it, cuz you are literally just engaging in slander without actual basis in fact. You and him not liking each other and getting into some arguments is not evidence that he mistreats members of the community.

And if getting in arguments with you is SC rejection worthy. Then you must think I should be recalled? We have never gotten along.
 
Last edited:
@Crushing Our Enemies i don't even know why we're still debating it exept to follow the correct procedure.

I've nothing more to say about him than i haven't already said elsewhere, full support on him.

Let's move for a vote already.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I also join the motion for an immediate vote, but mostly just because I think it's silly to have five days of additional debate after a motion to vote on a bill with no legislative text.
Click to expand...

Well, there isn't 5 additional days of debate considering I cancelled the vote.

With 11 motions of an immediate vote, the vote on the confirmation of Siwale to the Security Council shall begin immediately and last for 4 days.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top