Fregerson's Security Council Application

The Security Council has nominated Fregerson (PotatoFarmers) for a seat on the Security Council. The vote for this application was 5 Ayes, 3 Nays, and 1 abstention.

The Chair now presents this application to the Regional Assembly for its consideration.

The Security Council's statement in support of the nominee:

The Security Council has chosen to support the application of Fregerson to the Security Council. While his outside commitments may keep him occupied, Fregerson's dedication to the tasks at hand is evident. We believe that he has shown an apitude toward regional security, and has proven to be able to maintain a good relationship with the Security Council. We feel that Fregerson has successfully earned our trust over the years, along with the region's, and that his experience in the executive therefore merits his inclusion in the Council.

Click to expand...

This will be the motion to be voted on:

Motion:

The Regional Assembly confirms the nomination of Fregerson to the Security Council.

Click to expand...

Fregerson was an opponent of mine in the Vice Delegate race, and he certainly did not disappoint. I have full confidence of his ability to serve on the Security Council, and have no doubt that he will continue to be such a valued member of this community.

The vote appears to be quite close. Without going into any issues that may be deemed as sensitive, can the Vice-Delegate and/or those that voted Nay explain why the SC was divided on the matter?

I find Freg to be hard working, loyal and trustworthy. I would have no issue with him on the SC.

I have no issue with Freg joining the SC - I'm actually a little surprised at the number of negative votes. Also, I'm not sure I understand what "his outside commitments may keep him occupied" is referring to. If Fregerson were active in other regions, I would expect the Security Council to at least consider that fact, but as far as I am aware he is not.

Full support. What was the rationale for the negative SC votes?

I am also interested in the rationale for the nays, and the reference to outside commitments, assuming it's not IRL. If it's IRL, just say IRL.

I am not sure if it was related to me stepping down from the Vice Delegacy and how towards the end I was not even available to produce a WA report - and if so, then it would refer to my RL being more busy over this period. If so, I believe I have explained to members of the SC that I have reduced some of my commitments across all of Nationstates as a result of the sudden RL spike, but with my application I am confident that I could go back to handling a Minister-role equivalent of activity soon enough. And with that, my first priorities would be to keep myself back up with gameside activity and engagements with our gameside community - I have not been able to do that before the Chinese New Year period, but I am confident I can start to do more RMB engagements as a private citizen after the first days of CNY are completed, which is sometime next week.

Edit: And just in case the concerns seem to relate to my NS commitments outside of TNP - I have basically taken a full LOA from my RP commitments in the Nationstates Sports (NSS) community as well during this period. Previously, as Minister or as Vice Delegate, I have been doing those commitments concurrently with my TNP work, and I do not foresee that activity to affect my contributions to TNP in anyway, given the flexibility of how NSS works.

I’m sorry you haven’t heard any clarification from anyone in the SC yet, but I did want to confirm that aspect of the statement referred to your other obligations outside this game, not any other obligations in NS.

I can only speak for myself as to why there were votes against, as I was one of them. To tell you the truth, my reasoning is largely linked with the other application we’re considering, the one for Gorundu. In my view there is no question that Gorundu has a greater wealth of experience in this region and more time having worked closely with the SC compared to Fregerson, and did so with consistency. In contrast Fregerson has had a variety of roles but has been fairly inconsistent in performing them. The highs are very high but the lows render his presence in these jobs almost pointless. I understand and appreciate the time constraints and challenges involved in balancing it all. In my view it was not unreasonable, and based on past SC votes this is certainly how we looked at it, to assert that we haven’t seen enough from Fregerson for long enough to determine that now is the right time to join the SC.

I believe Fregerson can get along with the SC, that he can look outward and think critically about the things we focus on as managers of regional security. I know what he’s capable of and I’ve been impressed by his work when he’s there to do it. But that was a shaky term as VD, and we never know what version of Fregerson we’re going to get. I’m confident that focused and present Fregerson can be a good fit for the SC, I was just not in any hurry to make it happen now. And when I look at the remarks of my fellow SCers and how they handled the other application, I can’t help but feel we’re applying a bit of an inconsistent standard on these applicants. It may just be how I look at it, and I recognize every SCer has to vote according to their own personal standards, but I do believe there’s a place for some kind of consistent and present standard that we should be able to apply to a vote, otherwise it seems like we’re just arbitrarily going off one thing or another depending on who is under consideration.

The Security Council voted to support him, I thrust the Council completely in making these decisions so I will support that when it gets to the vote. I see that he is honest with preferring IRL life over this game, I think it is important to realize that this is just a site and not the world. I’ll support the nomination.

I think that Fregerson is a fantastic fit for the Security Council. Any activity concerns are not valid considering that the position of Vice Delegate is a much more pressing one than Security Councillor. Their tenure as VD, no matter how well it went has given them the experience to become a long term member of the Council.

I hope this can go to a vote soon, but I’d prefer someone other than the Speaker to motion.

AraFuttio:

I think that Fregerson is a fantastic fit for the Security Council. Any activity concerns are not valid considering that the position of Vice Delegate is a much more pressing one than Security Councillor. Their tenure as VD, no matter how well it went has given them the experience to become a long term member of the Council.

I hope this can go to a vote soon, but I’d prefer someone other than the Speaker to motion.

Click to expand...

Motion to vote.

Lord Nwahs:

Motion to vote.

Click to expand...

I too motion for the vote.

With a motion and second recognised, a vote has been scheduled to begin (time=1707996651).