Wonderess's Security Council Application

My objection still stands, and according to the rules of the Regional Assembly if two more citizens also object to a vote then the speaker must cancel the vote.
 
I object to the scheduling of the vote.

I have a question for Wonderess. The region has just been couped, there has been significant infighting, feelings have been hurt, grudges are still held. Due to the events, you find yourself as the Delegate both in-game and legally while elections are being held/we wait for the elections to be held. A vote comes up in the General Assembly on the topic of abortion, on the off-site forum, citizens are voting overwhelmingly to make abortion more accessible. Would you be able to act as a figure of unity in this case and vote as per the region's vote on the forums?

My main issue is that I do have some concerns about what Wondo brings to the Security Council that it doesn't have already. I do appreciate Wondo's willingness to always preach speak his truth and fight for what he believes even if it is not popular. Others have touched on how what he fights for can be somewhat... problematic for the region...

What I wanted to challenge was the specific assertion by Wondo himself that what he brings to the Security Council is concerning himself with "matters of conscience". While Wondo does love considering people, I have a few issues with how he goes about doing this:
  • Wondo believes it should be a requirement for individuals to participate in OOC conversations to be trustworthy;
  • Wondo does not recognize that some people act differently OOC and IC—he notes previously that he does not find a difference in the two;
  • Wondo has difficulty communicating at times his thoughts to others in a way that can be practically understood.
While I do love my friend dearly, I do remain questioning what he brings that the Security Council needs.

Lastly, I continuously remain confused as to whether the Security Council believes that previous applications are relevant. As Artemis has questioned in this thread whether the Security Council should be overriden, Marcus Antonius has wished to disregard any conversations comparing this applicant to other applicants.

My personal opinion is that previous votes by the SC are entirely relevant if we are supposed to be going along with the SC wishes. We should absolutely be questioning what differentiates candidates with similar backgrounds when one of them is approved and another denied.
 
If I were to find my self in the position of delegate, I would abstain from the abortion question, not voting for or against the proposal.

As to your three points:
-Being present to a community by giving one's self in openness and being known is most definitely important. If people who are elected to represent that community don't do that, then I do consider that a failing. We are human beings and so we must be personal as human beings with those we serve in order to serve them well.

-As I said before, people can use the IC OOC as an excuse to justify their game actions, but I'm not going to do that. If I wouldn't do it in real life, then I certainly wouldn't do it here. When I dispute someone's actions in the region and they tell me "it's just a game" I find that to be the biggest cop out answer which keeps them from having to address the actual weight and value of their actions. Now, what I will never do is like use some real world aspect of that person against them. It is wrong to bring their struggles or life events into the political arena and that I fully agree is unacceptable. The Delegate and I had a conversation about this whole issue and generally were on the same page. I believe good elected officials can have this viewpoint and arguably should have it because then it becomes harder to forget that others on this forum are real people worthy of dignity and respect, worthy to be listened to.

- I agree I can be a bit too abstract or philosophical for my own good. I do think that it is part of my uniqueness and your inquiry about what I bring to the table. I reason and perceive things from a philosophical perspective which I don't think the SC has a member for yet. I am working on my language though to make it more easily understood.
 
I believe, as Artemis does, that despite the proposal's length, a vote would still be premature. There is clearly still conversation going on and this topic is clearly still evolving.

Allow me, therefore, to complete the trifecta. I object to the scheduling of a vote.
 
One wonders just what you were all doing in the month this sat before the Regional Assembly with nary a post. Regardless, with three objections, the scheduled vote is cancelled.

The Regional Assembly rules state that to override an objection to vote, one third of the current quorum must motion to do so. Currently, quorum is 30, so 10 citizens are needed. Everyone should think very carefully about their next moves - and those intent on delaying the business of the Regional Assembly should keep in mind that the patience of the Speaker's office only extends so far.
 
Last edited:
I am glad that some of those who have in the past seemed rather disposed against the Assembly having time to consider confirmations have been won round to the side of scrutiny. As the seconder of the motion, I have to say I think it a bit unnecessary when the matter had been before the Assembly for so long already and when the Speaker had generously given five days before the vote, but we are where we are.

There are a number of points that have been made in this discussion that I want to briefly refer back to. Some members have suggested the possibility of Wonderess becoming involved in some Catholic coup of the region and alluded to United Massachusetts thinking he may have such sympathies to do so. I have to say, I find this unconvincing. The Council evidently did not think it a prominent enough concern to merit mentioning in its statement of reasons and I don’t think the imaginings of UM are all that reliable, given that he clearly also thought that CCD could successfully perpetrate a coup.

I also think it is interesting, though plainly there are Councillors vehemently to the contrary, that El Fiji Grande is supportive of a vote, because their concern and the concern set out by the Council at large is whether the region would trust Wonderess. Voting on his appointment and by two-thirds approving it in that context is different to that which may exist for other applicants. For others the concern may be that they are too inexperienced or are a risk to security, those are matters where the Council may be better placed to judge (though I personally would favour a more assertive approach by the Assembly in general). But the question of whether we trust Wonderess is something we are better placed to judge than the Council and it is that question that the Council’s reasons invite us to consider.

My own answer is yes, I have to say. I do not think Wonderess poses a risk to the Constitutional order and I think he would act to defend it. He clearly puts a lot of thought into his part in the region and cares about it, though I disagree with many of his criticisms. I do not think those criticisms show a willingness to dispose of our government anymore than any of the many other criticisms that have been levied by citizens and Councillors past and present. Others clearly have a different view and would not trust Wonderess on the Council and do not think others should either, that is a matter for them and for Wonderess.

One thing I would ask Wonderess, and I am grateful for Praetor having brought it out, is about WA voting. The policy of the regional government has long settled on the view that GA resolutions are voted on by the Delegate in accordance with the vote expressed on this forum. I appreciate you have strong convictions on a number of matters, but why would you think it appropriate in the circumstances described by Praetor to, effectively, change that long standing policy, held to by many elected Delegates, despite being a temporary and unelected official?
 
Once Wonderess has addressed the concerns brought up, I will support a motion to override the objections to vote.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
One thing I would ask Wonderess, and I am grateful for Praetor having brought it out, is about WA voting. The policy of the regional government has long settled on the view that GA resolutions are voted on by the Delegate in accordance with the vote expressed on this forum. I appreciate you have strong convictions on a number of matters, but why would you think it appropriate in the circumstances described by Praetor to, effectively, change that long standing policy, held to by many elected Delegates, despite being a temporary and unelected official?
Click to expand...
I think this is a very good question. There are very few situations that I would consider going against the forum WA vote. The one case mentioned is an instance where that I would have to consider my position because of my belief in the inherent good or evil of forwarding policies having to do with the access of abortion. After consideration I decided that the best course of action would be to abstain from the delegate vote. Members of the region could use their individual votes to show their position. I would not vote against the forum vote in favor of my position either. Neutrality is the compromise I have been able to justify to myself. Other than abortion, I do not see any other sort of proposals that would be such a dilemma as this so I do believe it is a rare possibility. I understand my responsibility to the region, but there are specific and defined situations where the moral duty outweighs the elected one.
 
I thought this was not going to proceed which is why I have not weighed in here until now. I have no issue with the override mechanism being used as that is what it is there for and what the law allows. Besides, if you want something done, do it yourself.

I have thought very hard about this admission and I have previously spoken privately with the applicant about it. I told him I hadn't made up my mind and that I had a number of concerns. These concerns are quite similar to those outlined by @Praetor. I will say from the outset that at this stage, I am minded to vote against this override. I will explain my reasoning below.

I am concerned that Wonderess would be unable to separate his real life political views and/or disagreements with elected officials about those views, from his position on the Security Council. In particular, this is most likely to relate to World Assembly voting by the Delegate or their Ministry, or even action by the NPA such as anti-approval campaigns, or action against particular regions. I feel that such action while a Security Councillor, particularly when accompanied by public declarations of which Wonderess is known to do, could be highly damaging to the security of this region, to the stability of the elected government, and to the Security Council as an institution. I do not think that in the heat of the moment of such political debate that Wonderess would be able to recognise that suitable boundary between an in-character action that brings our institutions into disrepute, and an out of character political disagreement. Finally sometimes when disagreements do happen, Wonderess has in the past blamed the privilege few or other invisible powers for that happening. That kind of thing coming out while serving on the Security Council has happened before - with Romanoffia. I do not wish to see anything like that again.

I think Wonderess should serve The North Pacific in other ways - perhaps continuing on the Court or as a Cabinet Minister at some point. I do not think the Security Council is the right body for everyone. I do not think it is the right body for Wonderess.

I do find it interesting that the Security Council is mostly voting against the admission of Brendog. Even though Brendog has had some spotty activity issues around exam time, he does not have any of this other baggage that Wonderess does and his application is failing even more strongly. I fear that familiarity bias is a factor here. Wonderess is more familiar to the Americans on the Security Council who interact with him on a daily basis given his availability. So friendships are formed and votes are cast accordingly. For me, friendship is not enough to vote for this admission at this time. While I consider Wonderess a friend and he has continuously improved during his time in The North Pacific, it is far too soon for him to serve on our Security Council given his record.
 
Weird that people object to holding a vote because there hasn't been enough discussion, and then discussion stops.

Ah well, someone has to do it. I motion for an immediate vote.
 
Gorundu:
Weird that people object to holding a vote because there hasn't been enough discussion, and then discussion stops.

Ah well, someone has to do it. I motion for an immediate vote.
Click to expand...
Sil Dorsett:
Agreed. I'll second the motion.
Click to expand...
These motions have been noted - a further 8, including one from @Wonderess as the initial proposer, are required to override the objections. The regulation addressing this is as follows, and can be found in Section 1 Clause 4 of the Regional Assembly Rules:
4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote, including the citizen that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.
Click to expand...
saintpeter:
Once Wonderess has addressed the concerns brought up, I will support a motion to override the objections to vote.
Click to expand...
I will require a motion from you in this regard if you are still willing.
 
Gorundu:
Weird that people object to holding a vote because there hasn't been enough discussion, and then discussion stops.

Ah well, someone has to do it. I motion for an immediate vote.
Click to expand...

I concur. I also motion for an immediate vote.
 
And that makes 10. A vote will open shortly.
 
Last edited:
If Wonderess has been compliant in UM's attempt to launch a coup against TNP, I will not vote for them.
 
I object to the duration of the vote.

I waited for posting my initial thoughts until it was clear that Wondo was intending to proceed with this application. Not much use in dogpiling him if he wasn't going to go through with it. Subsequently, given McM had similar thoughts to mine, I was hoping to see Wondo's response. Unfortunately, it will appear as though he will not respond.
 
Praetor:
I object to the duration of the vote.

I waited for posting my initial thoughts until it was clear that Wondo was intending to proceed with this application. Not much use in dogpiling him if he wasn't going to go through with it. Subsequently, given McM had similar thoughts to mine, I was hoping to see Wondo's response. Unfortunately, it will appear as though he will not respond.
Click to expand...

mcmasterdonia:
I also object to the duration of the vote.
Click to expand...

The motions are duly noted. 8 more will be necessary for this to take effect. The legal justification for this is as follows, and can be found in Section 2, Clause 4 of the Regional Assembly Rules.
Grosseschnauzer:
4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.
Click to expand...
 
Comfed:
If Wonderess has been compliant in UM's attempt to launch a coup against TNP, I will not vote for them.
Click to expand...
The report by the Delegate on that matter can be read here. There is no suggestion that Wonderess was complicit in or even knew of any planned coup. The Security Council’s reasons for rejecting Wonderess do not suggest that they think he was involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top