Wonderess's Security Council Application

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
Hello everyone. As many of you already know, I was not confirmed by the Security Council with a minority but a plurality of votes against my application with this reasoning being given:

The Security Council’s opinion is that recent episodes involving the applicant have revealed fractures between Wonderess and the rest of the community. Of particular concern is Wonderess’ statement that he “will not protect the existence of a regime if I find it broken.” This assertion is at odds with the Security Council’s oath and mission to defend TNP. Despite the applicant’s having expressed regrets for his statements, those negative sentiments towards our government have damaged the bonds of trust with the community. For the Security Council to effectively lead in times of crisis, trust is paramount. There should be no doubt that every council member will put the region’s affairs first, despite whatever policy disagreements they might have.

We all recognize that it takes time to build trust. Once trust is broken, it takes time and positive action to rebuild it. We hope that in time, Wonderess can reestablish the confidence needed to assume the role of Security Councillor.
I am unsure if I want a vote on it yet or not, but I thought a conversation anyhow could be beneficial. I am also willing to answer any questions you may have.
 
Last edited:

Dreadton

TuffingTost Senior Reporter
-
-
-
how do you address the concerns brought up by the Security Council?

If this goes to a vote, why should we override the people we charge with regional security?
 

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
how do you address the concerns brought up by the Security Council?
I guess I can understand their angle, but I hardly think that their response is the reality. I do not believe that there is some great breach in trust between me and the region based on Cosmo's thread a few weeks back, and that seems to be the central basis for which they make their argument. I have already made a distinction time and time again between my distaste for what people in the government support or do, but that is very different from me opposing the laws or government order itself. I said that when this was a popular discussion topic, and yet I feel the SC is choosing to overlook this and push the less charitable narrative as a means of rejecting my application.

If this goes to a vote, why should we override the people we charge with regional security?
Well for one, I found that. a third of the council abstained very interesting. I read it as them saying that they were unable to come to a decision about me as I was not rejecting unanimously but of course nor was I accepted unanimously. I believe I have demonstrated that I am honest and very open which the Security Council needs more of right now. They are trying to be more transparent and more engaging with the community to ensure that, and I would argue that I am one of the most present and engaging members that there is. I can be trusted to be here if I am needed in an emergency because I am around a great deal. I may not be the most agreeable citizen, but I think it would be very hard to question my dedication. I have been here for over two years, and despite all this time here I still am taking part in the region.
 

El Fiji Grande

Proud TNPer
-
-
-
This is part of what I had to say about his application when it came before the SC:
I generally feel that Wonderess' heart is always in the right place, but that he has trouble expressing it clearly, in a way the region can understand. Given his history within TNP, I'm sure this thread will become a lightning-rod for controversy, whatever we end up deciding. I'm opposed to the notion that we either should or shouldn't accept or deny his application based on that one factor, however.

As I stated in my recent Fireside Chat, I believe that the ideal Security Councillor is one who not only meets the minimum requirements for membership, but one who actively maintains community participation - both gameside and in the Executive Staff, has a strong character, is someone we can rely on in times of regional crisis, and is someone whom the region can trust.

Wonderess has served in an elected position as Speaker and has more recently served as McM's Press Secretary. He is considerably active in our community, continuing to post on a daily basis, participate in the Executive Staff, and contribute to TNP's University. I don't think of these achievements as considerable relative to what some SCers have contributed to our community, but some SCers have contributed less and remain good councillors. That's also not the sole basis for this decision.

I generally feel that he has a strong character, with the tenacity to persist in the face of disapprobation from many others in the region. That said, he's often stubborn, makes accusations based on those principles, and consistently conflates OOC with IC. He often divides the community rather than unites it. While his key responsibilities as a Security Councillor have little to do with his politics, they do affect his ability to provide leadership in a community that so often distrusts his motivations.
I remained conflicted through the end, and ultimately abstained in the vote. While I can't speak for the others who did vote against, in my mind there isn't much to discuss here. My primary objection to his application was that Security Councillors by their very nature must serve as rallying-points for the community in a time of regional crisis, and I wasn't entirely convinced that the community as it currently stands sees that in Wonderess. In my opinion, this isn't a case of overriding people charged with regional security as Dreadton suggests, but rather is an opportunity for the community to show support for Wonderess and dispel any notion that he is unfit for office on that basis. Becoming a member of the SC should never be a popularity contest, but an understanding that each member of the SC is deserving of public trust and supported by the community is important. After all, while we're charged with defending democracy in TNP, we likely won't be able to do it alone. Given that I know Wonderess would give his all in support of the region I must admit I was also tempted to vote for. That was the primary conflict in my mind, and would be resolved if this were to go to a vote.
 

Sil Dorsett

0.00 g/dL
-
-
-
-
-
-
In your nomination thread, I'll admit that I saw it as more of a "Why do you want to be on the Security Council?" type of thinking, and at least I judged you on that, along with the pillars I mentioned in our little chat. Now that you've brought it to the RA without first being nominated, my mode of thinking has changed to what I'm about to ask you...

"Why should you be on the Security Council?"
 
Last edited:

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
Why should you be on the Security Council?
Honestly, I think my main asset is being constantly concerned with matters of conscience. The SC must consider if a nation and furthermore a person is a threat to the region's stability. This requires ascertaining intentions, taking into consideration past actions, and of course doing one of the most difficult things of all which is make a decision on that person. It is a judgement of not only actions but character as a whole, and so much of my thought and time deal in this sort of processing. I have no doubt that there are already members on the council that do this, but I think each does it in their own way. I believe that I have a unique role in this region even though I care for it just as equally as everyone else who works for its good. I think perspective lends itself to considering how others help or harm the region or may potentially do so. This in mind, I think my proclivities would work well and help the SC in its mission to protect the region.
 

Robespierre

The MacMilitant
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
... I do not believe that there is some great breach in trust between me and the region based on Cosmo's thread a few weeks back, and that seems to be the central basis for which they make their argument.
Why mention cosmo specifically when addressing the context in which you made the statements in question that were included in the Security Council’s summarized rejection of your application? They said “recent episodes involving the applicant” and you said “cosmo” - but I seem to remember more debacles that you were a part of that didn’t involve cosmo. Does it not come off as a bit disingenuous to you to attempt to portray cosmo and the incidents to which you were both involved as the reason for why your application was denied?

More so, do you feel as though had these incidents with cosmo and you not occurred your application would have been accepted? By mentioning that, to me it seems as though you’re making excuses for why you were denied and shrugging off legitimate concerns about how you’re not a rallying point at this stage of the game. That being said, should the Regional Assembly vote to overturn the Security Council’s decision in favour of an applicant who makes excuses for themselves?
 
Last edited:

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
Why mention cosmo specifically when addressing the context in which you made the statements in question that were included in the Security Council’s summarized rejection of your application? They said “recent episodes involving the applicant” and you said “cosmo” - but I seem to remember more debacles that you were a part of that didn’t involve cosmo. Does it not come off as a bit disingenuous to you to attempt to portray cosmo and the incidents to which you were both involved as the reason for why your application was denied?

More so, do you feel as though had these incidents with cosmo and you not occurred your application would have been accepted? By mentioning that, to me it seems as though you’re making excuses for why you were denied and shrugging off legitimate concerns about how you’re not a rallying point at this stage of the game. That being said, should the Regional Assembly vote to overturn the Security Council’s decision in favour of an applicant who makes excuses for themselves?
@St George is correct. The SC refers to this incident directly. "Of particular concern is Wonderess’ statement that he 'will not protect the existence of a regime if I find it broken.'” That whole debacle was brought to the RA by Cosmo so I referred to it as such as everyone knows what I mean by that.

I am reading the SC's reasoning as it state's it. I do not agree that I am reading their statement uncharitably.
 
Last edited:

Robespierre

The MacMilitant
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
@St George is correct. The SC refers to this incident directly. "Of particular concern is Wonderess’ statement that he 'will not protect the existence of a regime if I find it broken.'” That whole debacle was brought to the RA by Cosmo so I referred to it as such as everyone knows what I mean by that.

I am reading the SC's reasoning as it state's it. I do not agree that I am reading their statement uncharitably.
That’s fair. I realize the quotes they have from you are from the thread that cosmo started asking you to resign, so correlating the two is understandable. My other question remains however: Do you feel as though hadn’t this happened you would have found more success when applying? If so, is it because of your previously stated reasoning about your history in service to the region?
 

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
That’s fair. I realize the quotes they have from you are from the thread that cosmo started asking you to resign, so correlating the two is understandable. My other question remains however: Do you feel as though hadn’t this happened you would have found more success when applying? If so, is it because of your previously stated reasoning about your history in service to the region?
It is hard for me to say for sure if I would have been more successful if the thread had not happened. A part of me has this sinking feeling that if it wasn't to be that then something else would have been used to reject me. I think it remains an important point that I have not been rejected by a majority of the SC, but a plurality of 4 votes. This shows a lack in decisiveness when it comes to my application which I think is worth exploring.
 
Last edited:

Gorundu

When in doubt, blame Bob
-
-
-
I believe Wonderess is an active member of the community and loyal to TNP, despite his frequent disagreements with other members. The incident referenced in the statement by the Security Council, I believe, is overblown and doesn't undermine the loyalty that Wonderess has exhibited towards TNP. I have faith that he would serve his duties reliably as Security Councillor, and I will vote for his confirmation should a vote come before the Regional Assembly.
 

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
I motion for a vote on the question of my admittance to the Security Council.
 

Dreadton

TuffingTost Senior Reporter
-
-
-
Lets get down to brass tacks.

UM has worked with enemies of the region to overthrow our government. Say next time s/he is successful in couping the region. S/He does not eject you based on your friendship and meeting of the minds. S/He, in fact, wants you to take a leading role in the New Catholic TNP.

It would be a tough position to be in. How can, in that situation, the region turn to you as a rallying point to restore the government without fear that you will be joining the coupers?
 

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
Lets get down to brass tacks.

UM has worked with enemies of the region to overthrow our government. Say next time s/he is successful in couping the region. S/He does not eject you based on your friendship and meeting of the minds. S/He, in fact, wants you to take a leading role in the New Catholic TNP.

It would be a tough position to be in. How can, in that situation, the region turn to you as a rallying point to restore the government without fear that you will be joining the coupers?
I would not support any invasion of the region that attempted to overthrow the government system in place. A coup is illegal, and regardless of the intention, the very act of couping the region is unacceptable. I would do my part to use what influence I had to eject coupers if I was called upon to do so. My allegiance is to the established legal order. If any movement wishes to bring change to the region by ignoring or deposing the constitution then I shall refuse to take part in any way.
 

Gorundu

When in doubt, blame Bob
-
-
-
I suppose I should talk about why I decided to bring this up again on Discord after so long a hiatus. It was Marcus' Nay vote on RocketDog's application to the Security Council that led me down a rabbit hole of thoughts on recent Security Council applicants. Marcus, the newest member of the Security Council to be confirmed, had been a citizen for just a year at that time, and had served several Deputy Ministerships and one incomplete term as Minister of Home Affairs, cut short by a LOA. By comparison, Wonderess had been in the region for over two years by this point, and has served in the elected position of Speaker, and is currently serving in the elected position of Justice, having also served in the Executive government as Press Secretary. I think we can agree that is a much longer record of service.

Now, what brings down Wonderess' application, in the minds of some, is his record of comments on the government and the community of the region, and perhaps a lack of commitment. However, what this demonstrates to me is that Wonderess has built a relationship that can be both accepting and critical of the region and the government, and a distinct personality for himself. His brief departure from TNP, in my opinion, serves to highlight that he believes TNP to be the only community he could be part of, and his continued service in government after his return has only reinforced that. Wonderess has developed trust with the region in an unconventional way, and by being a vocal critic at times, he has promoted the fundamental regional values of free speech and free expression, while continuing to be loyal to the only region he is part of.
 

Lord Lore

Eldritch Horror that Plagues Eras Cartogrpahy
-
-
-
Given that this is going to vote. I wish to explain my no vote and what lead me to my conclusion.

I voted no as a member of the council due to the fact I do not believe that Wonderess has the trust in the community and in fact I think the community has a general mistrust of him due to his actions. I must contextualize the timing of everything. This application came right after the creation of the Vigilance TNP thread that at the very least had the perception of looking down on and belittled the TNP community treating us like children who have lived in a rock our whole lives who were never taught right from wrong.

This also came after his friend UM was caught up in a fascists conspiracy to take over TNP, and leaked conversations Wonderess made on a discord server that seemed to suggest he would not be willing to stand in defense of the region's government if a case that lines up with his own personal morals could be made to support a coup/revolution.

I do not believe that trust can be established at this time, in a position established to safeguard the government and its principles. It is a mistake to put in place ANYONE who you have the slightest hint will possibly use that position against the region. As far as I am concerned this is a "shadow of a doubt" situation and https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9192028 is disqualifying.
 

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
I mean in regard to all things you just mentioned, Vigilance TNP, UM's crime against TNP, and the Cosmo Declaration of Independence episode, I think you are not seeing the fullness of the situations or attempting to give them a slant that I would consider a straw man. I think it is honest for me to say you don't try too hard to see the positive aspects of my presence in the region as you are a consistent critic of mine. I am sure others can judge the situations for themselves rather than just taking your word for it and same with mine.

1. Vigilance TNP - this was my philosophical statement on the community of the region and my thoughts on its current state.

2. UM's Crime and cooperation with TNP - here are the official reports on the matter

3. The Cosmo Incident - the thread regarding Cosmo's grievance with me
 

Lord Lore

Eldritch Horror that Plagues Eras Cartogrpahy
-
-
-
I think you are not seeing the fullness of the situations or attempting to give them a slant that I would consider a straw man.
I am not trying to straw man anything. Its LITERALLY right there in that third link, and I quote "I will not protect the existence of a regime if I find it broken". You said this sentence in regards to personal dispute with the delegate because you didn't like that delegate's opinion.

The security council exists for one reason and one reason only. To safeguard the current regime be that from external threats of coups and plots or from internal threats of rogue delegates and scheming. To have said that you can be convinced to not do that one specific thing if its in your own interests is a perfectly valid reason to oppose.

I think it is honest for me to say you don't try too hard to see the positive aspects of my presence in the region as you are a consistent critic of mine.
Yes I am a critic of yours the same way you have been of mine but I am not bringing personal feeling into this. The Council is created to safeguard the region. It is the onus of each one of us to be critical of applicants, to highlight the flaws because the council is only as strong as its individual members. Frankly it shouldn't be on me to find the positive, its your job to put forward a impeachable case, its mine to try to pick it apart.
 

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
You make a grand statement that I have a weaken state of trust with the community, but I think what you are more showing is your own personal perspective regarding me. I agree I can be contrary, I can be oppositional, and I can even cause a headache or two, but I do not think it is the case that the citizenry distrusts me. I have always been very up front about who I am and what my aims are. Authenticity is very important to me and so I think any claim that I am mysteriously waiting for a weak spot to attack the region or that I am not dedicated to the good and continual success of the region is unfounded.
 

Marcus Antonius

Per Ardua Ad Astra
-
-
I suppose I should talk about why I decided to bring this up again on Discord after so long a hiatus. It was Marcus' Nay vote on RocketDog's application to the Security Council that led me down a rabbit hole of thoughts on recent Security Council applicants. Marcus, the newest member of the Security Council to be confirmed, had been a citizen for just a year at that time, and had served several Deputy Ministerships and one incomplete term as Minister of Home Affairs, cut short by a LOA. By comparison, Wonderess had been in the region for over two years by this point, and has served in the elected position of Speaker, and is currently serving in the elected position of Justice, having also served in the Executive government as Press Secretary. I think we can agree that is a much longer record of service.
Seeing as you have publicly mentioned me, I feel I should respond. This thread is for Wonderess' application so I will not comment on my reasoning for the way I voted on Rocketdog's application.
If Rocketdog wishes to take his application to the RA, then I will share my thoughts.

For the record - I have never abandoned a post through LOA or otherwise. The type of person I am can be found here https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191192/

Now, what brings down Wonderess' application, in the minds of some, is his record of comments on the government and the community of the region, and perhaps a lack of commitment. However, what this demonstrates to me is that Wonderess has built a relationship that can be both accepting and critical of the region and the government, and a distinct personality for himself. His brief departure from TNP, in my opinion, serves to highlight that he believes TNP to be the only community he could be part of, and his continued service in government after his return has only reinforced that. Wonderess has developed trust with the region in an unconventional way, and by being a vocal critic at times, he has promoted the fundamental regional values of free speech and free expression, while continuing to be loyal to the only region he is part of.
I will quote to you my thoughts on Wonderess' SC Application :-

"In the time I have known Wonderess he appears to become embroiled in something controversial on occasion and usually finds himself on the defensive, fortunately for him he does have a strong character which sees him persevere. I find him to be both a respectful and thoughtful individual. I am concerned however on how he views the current Government structure which he appears to mistrust. I am not totally convinced he could be trusted with Confidential matters. He has been actively collecting endorsements since August last year and is currently in 14th place in the region. You guys have known him a lot longer than me and are in a better position to shed light as to his character." 2nd May 2020

I voted 'Abstain'

I have worked alongside Wonderess within TNPU and I like the guy. IRL I have, as you say "been around the block" a few times and I have had a lot of life experiences. I have, as yet, not had the pleasure of a theological conversation with him, I hope that may come in time. :)
 

Artemis

The Goddess of Death
-
-
-
-
-
I have several questions for Wonderess. Do you feel that the Security Council made the wrong decision in voting down your application 4 - 2 and 3 abstains? What is motivating you to push this forward in the Regional Assembly past the objections of the Security Council? If passed by the Regional Assembly, do you think it will be difficult to work with members of the Security Council who have expressed their concern regarding being able to trust you? What makes your application different from other applicants who also failed to secure the nomination from the Security Council?
 

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
I have several questions for Wonderess. Do you feel that the Security Council made the wrong decision in voting down your application 4 - 2 and 3 abstains? What is motivating you to push this forward in the Regional Assembly past the objections of the Security Council? If passed by the Regional Assembly, do you think it will be difficult to work with members of the Security Council who have expressed their concern regarding being able to trust you? What makes your application different from other applicants who also failed to secure the nomination from the Security Council?
Thank you for the questions, Artemis. I would point out that there was no decisive rejection of my application. More people voted against than for me, this is true, but there was no majority opposition. Sil stated that he voted no for the main reason that he wanted the Regional Assembly to decide the matter by a 2/3rds margin rather than a simple majority so it isn't clear that he full on opposes my candidacy. Because there was no decisive opinion from the SC, I've decided to let the RA decide. I was told people would be interested in the vote so I obliged since the Speaker said only I was allowed to bring a motion forward. As for my working relationship, the SC is unified under the purpose of protecting the region. I don't see that as being a problem going forward.

I am around a great deal of time so I thought it would be beneficial to put my time to good use in defense of the region. The Security Council has been criticized for being separated from the people and lacking transparency, and I think I can be helpful in bridging that gap. It can also be assured that I won't be unwavering in decisions such as a new applicant. I don't see myself ever abstaining as I see it as a SCers duty to make the hard decisions such as accepting or rejecting an applicant for a nomination. I am a good deliberator and if anything can ask the deep central questions to have conversations that help make decisions. I believe I am a strong presence in any office I hold and that would extend to the case of me being a Security Councilor.
 

Artemis

The Goddess of Death
-
-
-
-
-
I would point out that there was no decisive rejection of my application. More people voted against than for me, this is true, but there was no majority opposition.
If more voted against your application than for it, then a majority was against.


As for my working relationship, the SC is unified under the purpose of protecting the region. I don't see that as being a problem going forward.
This really did not answer my question. How do you expect that members of the Security Council would work with you when they do not trust you to set aside your ideals and beliefs when you have stated that you will not protect a regime that you disagree with?

What makes your application different from other applicants who also failed to secure the nomination from the Security Council?
This was also left unanswered. Since 2009, the Regional Assembly has not overridden the Security Council’s rejection of an applicant. Why should this body do so now in regards to an applicant who’s rhetoric has been cause for at a minimum concern and has conflated IC and OOC matters on several occasions?
 

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
If more voted against your application than for it, then a majority was against.
By law yes, I am not disputing that. My point is that a majority of members of the council did not vote against and so it is not truly a majority of the council against my candidacy but rather just 4 of the 8.
This really did not answer my question. How do you expect that members of the Security Council would work with you when they do not trust you to set aside your ideals and beliefs when you have stated that you will not protect a regime that you disagree with?
I mean are you saying that people on the council are not going to do their jobs in regard to my presence because they have decided I shouldn't be there? You do the job by having the conversations about the security of the region and working on the matter at hand. I have full faith the council can do that, and I can do that. I honestly don't see what more there is to the matter.
This was also left unanswered. Since 2009, the Regional Assembly has not overridden the Security Council’s rejection of an applicant. Why should this body do so now in regards to an applicant who’s rhetoric has been cause for at a minimum concern and has conflated IC and OOC matters on several occasions?
I mean IC / OOC is not something I think is actual but is more used as an excuse. Even the Delegate of the region has concerns about this distinction. Just as a sportsman is called to be a man of integrity on the field and off the field so too is the case whether you are on the forum, on the Discord, in your home, or in the world. I have no distinctions regarding how someone conducts themselves or treats others when it comes to setting. If anything it is a strength because it is stating that no matter where you find me, you know what to expect. I pride myself on being consistent, predictable, and stable in my intent, conduct, and actions. Do I make mistakes sometimes? Absolutely. I fail my own principles at times as happens with all people. However, I strive to be that which I am capable of being at all times. I think the fact that people will know what they will get from me on the Council is reassuring and a positive. Those three abstentions tell a story of uncertainty from the SC because they did not know which way to vote regarding me. I am happy to a degree that the RA now gets to make its decision because it isnt the SC I am supposed to be pleasing or answering to in the end, its the people writ large.

I believe the opinion of the Council that there is some dramatic fracture between me and the people is either exaggerated or straight up false, and I think many here in the RA can see through that opinion as well which is one reason I decided to bring the matter to vote regardless of having the SC's blessing or not.
 

St George

Speaker
-
-
-
-
-
Since 2009, the Regional Assembly has not overridden the Security Council’s rejection of an applicant.
Frankly this isn't relevant. This application should be decided on the merits of the applicant only, not on past precedent.
 

Robespierre

The MacMilitant
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
Although I may be able to appreciate Gorundu's insight on the matter, I must respectfully disagree with his position on this.

As past instances have shown us, Wonderess' "philosophical statements on the community of the region" can often be mistaken as being condescending in nature and his rhetoric can oftentimes be inadvertently seen as though it was meant to belittle us or preach to us as to how we should be doing things - much like how Lore commented above.

Indeed, Wonderess is a very distinct personality in the region and although I will admit that I have been a political adversary of his in the past I too generally find that he can be a respectful and thoughtful individual at times, much like Marcus does. Wonderess may say that Lore is unwilling to see the positive aspects of his presence in the region, but whether or not this is true (which I don't believe it to be), I want to make it clear that I am willing to see the positives and I am willing to publicly acknowledge them if and when they become apparent at a given time.

That being said, at this juncture, I do not believe that Wonderess is fit to be a Security Councilor and I would strongly discourage the Regional Assembly from overturning the Security Council’s recommendation (or in this case the lack thereof). My reasonings for this are as follows:

Firstly, I'd like to note that simply because an applicant to the Security Council has experience in public service, that is not what should be used to compare them to other civil servants who are currently on the Security Council. At no point should public service alone be the bar by which we assess others because there is a multitude of factors that contribute to a Security Councilor being qualified to hold office and whether or not they're successful in the role.

Of course, having a track record of valuable service to the government or a record of contributions to the community will always be an important indicator of one's engagement with the region. But the reason why I say that this alone shouldn't become the bar by which we assess future applicants is because doing so narrows our standards for the qualities that we desire in our Security Councilors. I firmly believe that focusing solely on this would be a mistake and would prove as a distraction when attempting to view the overall picture of things.

There's nothing wrong with being a vocal critic of the government or regional institutions, and I'd even go as far as to say that Wonderess' promotion of fundamental regional values such as free speech and free expression is admirable, especially when he knows that he'll receive heavy criticism for his views. That is another positive aspect of Wonderess' character, and once again I'm always willing to concede positives when I notice them.

Wonderess is a strong-willed individual who doesn't deviate from what he believes in the face of widespread public opinion. That itself can be considered a positive trait, but where I have an issue is how Wonderess remains seemingly oblivious as to how comments such as these reflect badly on his perceived sense of commitment and loyalty to the region.

Going back to his comments on how he "will not protect the existence of a regime if [he] finds it broken", I find that his brief departure from the North Pacific coincides well with this and makes an even stronger argument for what Lore was saying above. At that time, Wonderess found something to be broken with our government but rather than acting to correct it or improve upon it for the good of all North Pacificans he instead decided to abandon the region for a period of time.

This lead me to consider: If admitted to the Security Council without the recommendation of its members, what would happen if a would-be couper or disrupter were to express views that more closely aligned with Wonderess' own? How would he react? Would he sympathize, and more importantly, would he aid? These are all discussions that have taken place before, and while I don't personally doubt that Wonderess actively seeks what he deems to be "the good", I do also recognize that his definition of that good is completely arbitrary and if given the choice to trust or not trust I simply wouldn't rely on Wonderess' own discretion for the same reason Lore cited: the "shadow of a doubt" factor.

Circling back to what I could only identify as being oblivious, Wonderess routinely questions why others doubt his commitment or doubt his loyalty to the region without recognizing that it could be in part due to his own actions - actions that speak volumes and have communicated a message that contradicts his claims. When we're making a choice about who to admit and who not to admit to the Security Council there should never be an instance in which we continue to question this and still overturn the Security Council's recommendation despite this. When I spoke to Wonderess and told him how some of his comments could be seen as condescending he even admitted that he was unaware of this prior to me communicating that to him and said that he hadn't even considered it from that perspective.

Frankly this isn't relevant. This application should be decided on the merits of the applicant only, not on past precedent.
I completely agree with you in saying that this application (or any other for that matter) ought to be decided on the merits of the application itself. However, I do not believe the precedent of the situation to be irrelevant in this case and the fact that this body has not overridden the Security Council’s recommendation in over a decade is a fact that should be very telling to us all.

I believe that what Artemis has said here allows us to reflect properly upon the significance of this event and truly understand the gravity of potentially overturning the Security Council’s recommendation. Seeing as to how there is no mechanism for the Regional Assembly to regularly re-confirm or re-affirm Security Councilors on an annual or every sixth-month basis, this poses an interesting question to the citizenry that addresses whether or not we’d like to have Wonderess sit on the Security Council for an undefined amount of time that’s not respective to a term length,

During this time, the time in which Wonderess would hypothetically be serving as a protector of our region if his application were to be upheld by the Regional Assembly, he would need to work with others currently on the Security Council to ensure that he’s doing his duty in the most effective manner possible. That being said, if sitting Security Councilors have already expressed doubts about his ability to serve and do the aforementioned duty effectively then I feel as though there’s reason to believe that he may have a difficult time working alongside members of the Council who have displayed a lack of trust or confidence in him.

If there's any reason to suspect that this indeed may be the case, which there is, then I'd say that it doesn't bode well for Wonderess' application.

We need Security Councilors who have the self-awareness to know how their actions and their words affect others in the region, and at this point in time, I don't believe Wonderess has checked the box on that criteria even if I know he means well and even if I perceive his intentions to be pure (which I do, for the record). No applicant is perfect and I'd never expect Wonderess to be a perfect applicant. But in my opinion, when looking to the overall picture and weighing the positives against the negatives, Wonderess leaves a fair amount to be desired and I do sincerely hope that improves with time.

It is something that can improve with time, and it's something that I believe Wonderess would consciously endeavor to improve in time. But right now? I do not see this as a Security Council-ready applicant for the reasons I've stated herein.
 

St George

Speaker
-
-
-
-
-
I completely agree with you in saying that this application (or any other for that matter) ought to be decided on the merits of the application itself. However, I do not believe the precedent of the situation to be irrelevant in this case and the fact that this body has not overridden the Security Council’s recommendation in over a decade is a fact that should be very telling to us all.
We were told during Marcus's application that we shouldn't compare his application to others that had been rejected, such as the very qualified Xentherida's - I do not believe we should be considering anything other than the qualities and potential issues Wonderess could bring the Security Council, not the significance of overriding the Security Council recommendation. They are not infallible and indeed capable of being wrong - they have been in the past - and to suggest that the RA shouldn't override the recommendation of the Security Council simple because it hasn't happened since 2009 is an erroneous argument.

Whether to override should be decided solely by the quality of the applicant, not the significance of the override itself.
 

Robespierre

The MacMilitant
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
We were told during Marcus's application that we shouldn't compare his application to others that had been rejected, such as the very qualified Xentherida's - I do not believe we should be considering anything other than the qualities and potential issues Wonderess could bring the Security Council, not the significance of overriding the Security Council recommendation. They are not infallible and indeed capable of being wrong - they have been in the past - and to suggest that the RA shouldn't override the recommendation of the Security Council simple because it hasn't happened since 2009 is an erroneous argument.

Whether to override should be decided solely by the quality of the applicant, not the significance of the override itself.
Of course, and I concur: There’s definitely a need to weigh the qualities against potential issues and in my post above that’s what I was endeavoring to do - because there are a number of both. It’s true that the Security Council can be wrong and yes, they have been before. Even so, you mentioned that we shouldn’t go off of precedent alone, and that’s not what I was disagreeing with.

I don’t think precedent alone is what determines whether or not we should override. I’m saying that the precedent, when combined with other factors (including comments and questions from some Security Councilors in this thread) forces us to consider the significance of doing so. Not that the significance itself is the primary reason to uphold the Security Council’s lack of a recommendation. Pardon me if I hadn’t made that clear.

Yes, the Security Council can and has been wrong before. But what I’m saying is that for the reasons I explained above I don’t believe that they’ve gotten it wrong in this instance and I maintain the position that overturning would be a mistake at this time.
 

Lord Lore

Eldritch Horror that Plagues Eras Cartogrpahy
-
-
-
You make a grand statement that I have a weaken state of trust with the community, but I think what you are more showing is your own personal perspective regarding me. I agree I can be contrary, I can be oppositional, and I can even cause a headache or two, but I do not think it is the case that the citizenry distrusts me. I have always been very up front about who I am and what my aims are. Authenticity is very important to me and so I think any claim that I am mysteriously waiting for a weak spot to attack the region or that I am not dedicated to the good and continual success of the region is unfounded.
For someone stating that authenticity is important. I find it very interesting you twisting my words to fit your meaning. I did not say you were looking to attack the region and any plain reading of what I said would not lead you to such a conclusion. I very specifically pointed out you have been caught in the heat of the moment when you are upset with the delegate stated that you are willing to not defend the system if you believe the system is flawed according to your own morals.

This speaks DIRECTLY to your qualifications to be trusted with the security of the system, and the fact that you are not willing to address that shows me that you stand by that statement. Someone who can be convinced to let the system be destroyed should not be charged with the security of that system. Its like hiring a museum guard who has posted on social media about how 'If I don't like the painting I will not attempt to guard the art'/
 
Last edited:

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
I feel I have stated time and time again including in this very thread my position that I will protect the legal structure of the region, most importantly the constitution. Robespierre brought the issue up again so that either means that what I have said was not read or there is belief that I do not mean what I say. When I have a job or responsibility, I live it out faithfully. I told the SC in their questioning of me that my job would come before my personal strife in the region which means that I would never depart from it as an SCer nor would I support some overthrow of the region even if it was aligned closely to my viewpoints.

I have been asked in this thread about coups, and so I found it fitting to respond to that in regard to Lore's quotation above.
 

Robespierre

The MacMilitant
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
I feel I have stated time and time again including in this very thread my position that I will protect the legal structure of the region, most importantly the constitution. Robespierre brought the issue up again so that either means that what I have said was not read or there is belief that I do not mean what I say. When I have a job or responsibility, I live it out faithfully. I told the SC in their questioning of me that my job would come before my personal strife in the region which means that I would never depart from it as an SCer nor would I support some overthrow of the region even if it was aligned closely to my viewpoints.

I have been asked in this thread about coups, and so I found it fitting to respond to that in regard to Lore's quotation above.
Allow me to directly quote what I said earlier and further elaborate upon it:
Robespierre:
Wonderess routinely questions why others doubt his commitment or doubt his loyalty to the region without recognizing that it could be in part due to his own actions - actions that speak volumes and have communicated a message that contradicts his claims.
This has nothing to do with whether or not your words were read. They were. This has everything to do with your past actions that demonstrate a contrary reality to the one you speak on. You claim that your job will come before your personal strife in the region if the Security Council's decision not to recommend you is overturned. You claim that you would not support an overthrow of a government's regime even if it was aligned closely with your own viewpoints. You claim that the Security Council's concerns with your application are exaggerated and false.

Whether or not the people of this region believe those claims is entirely up to them and I'd encourage them to decide that for themselves independently, but your attempts to downplay your oppositional behavior, behavior that has proven to be divisive and harmful in the past, along with your failure to answer for valid concerns only further illustrates my point. You have no idea why people would doubt you, and I'm attempting to get you to realize why these issues keep arising and why these questions continue to be asked. I myself do not doubt that you have good intentions. I myself do not doubt your loyalty, and I'm not insinuating that you'd side with a couper or disrupter to the regime. What I am doing is examining the context with regards to recency and I'm making sure those questions are being asked yet again because they're questions that apparently need to be asked yet again. Rather than simply deflecting criticism and saying all concerns are exaggerated or false, how about you actually address them in a thorough and satisfactory manner since this is your application that's being voted upon?

The reason I "brought the issue up again" is because A.) It's relevant to the conversation. B.) It was a recent controversy in the grand scheme of things, and C.) Because it's a prime example of how you continuously contort the words of others to fit your narrative and martyr yourself into playing the victim card yet again. You don't just get to walk away from it and act like it doesn't affect anything else. As Lore eluded to, that process takes time.

You'll note that in my message above I repeatedly specified that at this time I do not believe you to be fit to join the Security Council. As this discussion progresses, you seem to have not started on that process as of yet if you're still evading and downplaying questions and concerns from not only the Security Council but from others in this region. What that indicates to me is that the time until your application can be seriously reevaluated is farther away than I initially thought.

The fact that we're at this stage and people, myself included, still have this many concerns with your application shows that you're not ready. In no world should we ever overturn the Security Council's decision for an applicant who presses on with this process yet does so with little regard for the perceptions and viewpoints of others. You said before this discussion resumed that you will defend your character in this thread, but isn't that what you're all about?

Being defensive, responding to "attacks". Take yourself out of that mindset and try conversing instead. You're always one for intellectual discourse and debate, so showcase your skills here in the halls of the Regional Assembly. I know that you mean well, but at this rate, you're not alleviating these concerns. You'll find that this vote will yield better results if you drop the defensive act and take a moment to reapproach the discussion.
 

Lord Lore

Eldritch Horror that Plagues Eras Cartogrpahy
-
-
-
I feel I have stated time and time again including in this very thread my position that I will protect the legal structure of the region, most importantly the constitution. Robespierre brought the issue up again so that either means that what I have said was not read or there is belief that I do not mean what I say. When I have a job or responsibility, I live it out faithfully. I told the SC in their questioning of me that my job would come before my personal strife in the region which means that I would never depart from it as an SCer nor would I support some overthrow of the region even if it was aligned closely to my viewpoints.

I have been asked in this thread about coups, and so I found it fitting to respond to that in regard to Lore's quotation above.
That the the thing though isn't it. Yes you have said that you will protect the legal structure of the region. But I am pointing out other things that you have said. You will not address the OTHER things you have said. You were either lying then or you are lying now, you can't claim one view point and then declare that you also hold the opposite belief. You can say you hold the opposite position as much as you want, but that does NOT erase that you have also stated you hold that belief as well.

And pivoting around and ignoring the fact you said those things only shows me that you can't be trusted because who knows what you really believe, because that to me says you will just say whatever it is you need to get the position.
 

Artemis

The Goddess of Death
-
-
-
-
-
Frankly this isn't relevant. This application should be decided on the merits of the applicant only, not on past precedent.
Frankly it is relevant. There was more to the statement. It is important to consider that in nearly a decade a rejection from the Security Council has not been overridden. Does this application warrant an override? I’m one who believes in judging an application based on said application. But in this case there is more to consider than just the applicants merits. I see how you might feel that it is not relevant but I digress I that feel that it is relevant and an important consideration.
 

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
-
-
I haven't done anything to undermine the region. My whole thing with Cosmo was that I was not going to support McMasterdonia or act like I supported his actions when I didn't. I am allowed to show my dismay and dissatisfaction with government leaders. This had nothing to do with couping or undermining the constitution. If the region saw it as a real issue then there would have been a recall motion. Only now is this being made a large issue. I continue to hold that your characterization of me is incorrect.

It is my hope that people who know me better and interact with me on a more regular basis speak their mind as well.
 
Top