Marcus Antonius' Security Council Application

I looked back through the thread and noted that 3 of the members who voted for the nomination explained why they did so, so I have to assume those answers were deemed insufficient. Since that is the case, I guess I'll try to tackle this question. For starters, I believe the premise of your question is flawed, as it suggests that new SC members must necessarily have something new, or something old that is currently lacking from the rest of the members, to be considered for a spot on the SC, that there must be some specific need to be uncovered. It could also be the case you just want us to confirm whether or not we had some specific needs-based criteria in mind, though given 3/4 of us have already said exactly why we supported this nominee, I have to assume you're placing a value judgment on the existence of these specific criteria you are asking about, and that you place a high value on it (perhaps even believe it is essential to a successful vote). I do not agree that is the right way to look at SC applicants, though as I have said before, I respect every person's right to use their own criteria and factors when deciding whether or not to approve of a potential SC member. I am afraid for this reason you are likely to be disappointed by my answer.

The members of the SC have largely the same qualities. I wouldn't say that specific roles need to be filled by applicants to fill in gaps we are missing. These days we want active and engaged players who will enthusiastically do the job. They should have strong endotarting skills, they have judicious temperament, they should be familiar with the region and its community. Our criteria and preferences are clearly outlined on the application thread. In my view, an applicant does not need some gimmick or bring something specific to the table that everyone else lacks. That does not mean they don't have one, but in this case I do not believe Marcus does. Speaking only for myself, I supported him for the reasons I previously stated, and not because I believed he had some particular skill or role that he would uniquely bring to the SC. Any applicant who meets the basic criteria (as well as the guidelines and qualities we outlined in the application thread) and has the trust and confidence of the SC can earn its support, there is no quota, and I don't think I am the only SC member who would say that I wouldn't mind having a council even larger than this. We don't need more members, but more members would be nice to have. That isn't to suggest we aren't picky; obviously it is not as easy as sending in an app and having the basic requirements down. But I would not say that any of the members who have been admitted to the council since my time in TNP could lay claim to some specific talent or unique skill no one else on the council had at the time they applied.
 
I would be interested in the advice, in broad terms, that is given to those who are interested in joining the Council, if the Vice Delegate or other Councillors could assist in that regard. I should say, I don't think that an answer on that point is needed before moving further on this proposal.

In relation to the discussion there has been on this matter, as much as I appreciate the answer given by Pallaith, I do think it regrettable that others have not engaged with Praetor's question and I think it highly regrettable that some Councillors have at times in this process taken what seems to me to be an unduly obstructive and confrontational stance to scrutiny by the Assembly. However, I am not sure I think it fair to the applicant themselves for their application to be delayed much longer when they themselves have endeavoured to engage with questions asked of them and with concerns expressed about their nomination.
 
Pallaith:
I looked back through the thread and noted that 3 of the members who voted for the nomination explained why they did so, so I have to assume those answers were deemed insufficient. Since that is the case, I guess I'll try to tackle this question. For starters, I believe the premise of your question is flawed, as it suggests that new SC members must necessarily have something new, or something old that is currently lacking from the rest of the members, to be considered for a spot on the SC, that there must be some specific need to be uncovered. It could also be the case you just want us to confirm whether or not we had some specific needs-based criteria in mind, though given 3/4 of us have already said exactly why we supported this nominee, I have to assume you're placing a value judgment on the existence of these specific criteria you are asking about, and that you place a high value on it (perhaps even believe it is essential to a successful vote). I do not agree that is the right way to look at SC applicants, though as I have said before, I respect every person's right to use their own criteria and factors when deciding whether or not to approve of a potential SC member. I am afraid for this reason you are likely to be disappointed by my answer.

The members of the SC have largely the same qualities. I wouldn't say that specific roles need to be filled by applicants to fill in gaps we are missing. These days we want active and engaged players who will enthusiastically do the job. They should have strong endotarting skills, they have judicious temperament, they should be familiar with the region and its community. Our criteria and preferences are clearly outlined on the application thread. In my view, an applicant does not need some gimmick or bring something specific to the table that everyone else lacks. That does not mean they don't have one, but in this case I do not believe Marcus does. Speaking only for myself, I supported him for the reasons I previously stated, and not because I believed he had some particular skill or role that he would uniquely bring to the SC. Any applicant who meets the basic criteria (as well as the guidelines and qualities we outlined in the application thread) and has the trust and confidence of the SC can earn its support, there is no quota, and I don't think I am the only SC member who would say that I wouldn't mind having a council even larger than this. We don't need more members, but more members would be nice to have. That isn't to suggest we aren't picky; obviously it is not as easy as sending in an app and having the basic requirements down. But I would not say that any of the members who have been admitted to the council since my time in TNP could lay claim to some specific talent or unique skill no one else on the council had at the time they applied.
Click to expand...
The noted 3 Aye Security Councillors did not answer my question in their posts nor subsequently after asking my question in their posts.

I asked the question as it was noted in previous threads when an individual was bringing something new to the table. Your answer suffices and is appreciated. And also answered my followup questions. :)

Zyvetskistaahn:
I would be interested in the advice, in broad terms, that is given to those who are interested in joining the Council, if the Vice Delegate or other Councillors could assist in that regard. I should say, I don't think that an answer on that point is needed before moving further on this proposal.

In relation to the discussion there has been on this matter, as much as I appreciate the answer given by Pallaith, I do think it regrettable that others have not engaged with Praetor's question and I think it highly regrettable that some Councillors have at times in this process taken what seems to me to be an unduly obstructive and confrontational stance to scrutiny by the Assembly. However, I am not sure I think it fair to the applicant themselves for their application to be delayed much longer when they themselves have endeavoured to engage with questions asked of them and with concerns expressed about their nomination.
Click to expand...
I do agree that Marcus has been quite timely and forthcoming in his answers; I have no issue with him.

In defence of the Security Council however, of the 9 individuals on the Council, only 5 have posted in this thread. Of those 5, only 3 of them voted Aye. In terms of actually getting answers out of the Aye Security Councillors, based on prior behaviour in this thread, only Artemis and Ghost could be relied on to actually answer the question. While I am sure some of the other Security Councillors would be willing to engage, the question is not meant for them.
 
Last edited:
Praetor:
I have a question to the SCers that voted Aye; what does Marcus bring to the table that the SC doesn't already have? Why is there a need for him on the Council?
Click to expand...

While there is not much more I can add to what Ghost said, I do want to echo that I believe that is the question about what someone brings to the table is not necessarily the approach to take to someone joining the Security Council. While any applicant can bring something to the table, it's not a necessity. To directly answer your question, I did not take into consideration what Marcus brings to the table. As I have stated in my statement of support for the nominee, he has shown to be hardworking and dedicated to the region. He has worked to build relationships in the region and utilize those relationships to make a name for himself.

Zyvetskistaahn:
I would be interested in the advice, in broad terms, that is given to those who are interested in joining the Council, if the Vice Delegate or other Councillors could assist in that regard. I should say, I don't think that an answer on that point is needed before moving further on this proposal.
Click to expand...

While not needed, it will be provided. In the OP of the Security Council Application thread, the Security Council included a post regarding what the Council looks for in its applicants. This is a guideline at what the Security Council takes into consideration for applications.

Grosseschnauzer:
Your application will be discussed and then voted on by the Council. 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.
Click to expand...
From there, recommendations given to potential applicants varies based on the information provided to the Council about the individual. No two recommendations would really be the same and would differ depending on circumstance.

With that, I move for a vote.
 
The motion for a vote and the second are acknowledged. A vote is scheduled to begin in 24 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top