...which is a completely biased response given that McM basically threw you a bone by agreeing with you in some aspect.
Well tossing Wonderess a bone is a new one indeed. You of all people should know that Wonderess does not need anyone to throw him a bone, to assert such is really asinine, and if that was my motivation that would be really quite perplexing
Wondo has demonstrated consistently that he is perfectly willing to create his own hill to die on, and to pursue laws, motions and campaigns that have little hope of succeeding. Wondo desires no bone from anyone. Believe me, I am the expert on bones. I wrote the book on it. Nonetheless, my comment was not to throw him a bone but to explain my own stance on this proposal.... which I note was not really addressed either
.
To view this differently, as a Security Councillor, unless your nation gets deleted from the region by the NS moderators or you started flaming people in the Regional Assembly (although in Romanoffia's case we saw even that wasn't enough for some SCers to support his removal), most nations are unlikely to have any idea of the OOC temperament, judgement, or ability of any of the Security Councillors. Whereas extremely poor OOC judgement and actions by the Delegate and/or Vice Delegate is more likely to have an immediate impact.
However if as an SCer you started to constantly flame nations in OOC political debates on the regional message board, that would be a problem. Flaming is an out of character action that you may not be participating in as a Security Councillor, but the in-character consequences could be the severe undermining of the Security Council, the destabilisation of the region, a growth in the lack of trust for the institution you serve etc... Those are in-character consequences for out of character actions.
I also believe that OOC matters such as temperament and judgement has always been relevant to deciding who should serve in the line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate. There is a reason Great Bights Mum was always so high up on this list and Romanoffia was not (though perhaps not the only reason...).
Your points however are quite similar to GBM, which she outlined below:
I disagree with that statement. Historically, the RA recalls government officials based on shortcomings in job performance. OOC considerations are a separate matter altogether. They have to be separated. We wouldn't want the moderation team to be making decisions based on regional politics. By the same token, we do not need our assembly to concern itself with the number of warning points a particular player has. One thing has little to do with the other.
I think GBM is absolutely correct that IC powers that be should not be determining OOC punishments. It would be completely inappropriate for the Delegate to be imposing warnings for flaming on people he/she disagreed with, or to be banning forum users for whatever reason they chose etc. It would be completely inappropriate for moderators to be factoring in political fall out into their decision making (eg This person is too popular to ban!). That much is true.
But out of character actions can matter, particularly in higher office. It demonstrates your judgement, your ability to make rational decisions, and whether or not you can put the community first ahead of your personal needs or grievances. What also matters is your intent, how you respond to the criticism (or punishment), and how maturely you engage with the fact that you have been called out and made serious mistakes. It would not be appropriate to make a blanket statement that out of character matters are
never relevant for in-character political decision making. I firmly believe that there is always that line where they do become relevant, particularly with elections, and particularly in relation to ability to continuing ability to perform in the role.
Otherwise, as a hypothetical, are we really to believe that if someone commits a very bad OOC action (for instance pornspamming) that we would say - OK well that was OOC, it is totally fine for them to continue as an IC office holder? Even though that could put the community at risk? I am not saying that applies in this particular case... but how we frame our discussion on this subject does matter. I do not think it is reasonable, realistic or accurate to suggest that OOC considerations are an entirely separate or irrelevant consideration to public office.
I also note the assertion earlier in the thread that the Administrators/Moderators responsible for the ban would have pursued a recall if we had believed in it. I think this is an incorrect assumption as that would be a conflict of interest and may require a moderator to disclose more than they are willing to do. I find it incredibly unlikely that an Administrator or Moderator would introduce said motion, at most, some may vote for it, but that would be the extent of it. Gorundu perhaps says it best:
<snip>
To everyone who said an admin or mod would have initiated the motion if it was serious enough, you can see that several admins/mods have already chosen to abstain from the discussion and vote. The reason's pretty obvious. They don't want to be seen as using their moderation authority to influence a political matter. They've done their job, and it's up to us to decide if has happened warrants a recall.
I remain against with respect to this recall based on Robespierre's response to this thread and his demonstrated maturity in handling the punishment. I am responding however, for the sake of debate and for offering a complete picture of why in my view, OOC matters are often relevant to IC decision making.
