Gorundu's Security Council Application


Vice Delegate
TNP Nation
The Security Council has declined to nominate Gorundu (Gorundu) for a seat on the Security Council. The vote for this application was 2 Ayes and 7 Nays.

As Chair of the Security Council, I would like to allow the Regional Assembly to discuss and debate whether they believe the applicant deserves entry into the Security Council. I invite the applicant to make their case in this thread for why they deserve to be admitted if they wish to do so.

Below is the Security Council's rationale as to why they did not support the applicant's nomination:
The Security Council has opted against supporting Gorundu's application to the Security Council. We do not doubt his commitment to the region and recognize what he has done for us in the past as Vice Delegate and Delegate. However, the events leading to the end of his Delegacy still remain fresh in our minds, months later. As a result, we are unsure whether we feel comfortable having him on the Security Council, and believe that at this time it is not the right time for him to be in another position of trust in the region. However, we would be open to working with him should his trust within the community improves, either in the upcoming discussion or in a later period.

This will be the motion to be voted on:
The Regional Assembly appoints Gorundu to the Security Council.
Last edited:
I can see that Pallaith and Sil voted in favour. I respect both of those voices as long standing agents of security and stability here. That is not to say I don’t respect the others, but particularly given Pallaith’s stance on the recall, I think his support here really shows some significance.

My view is that given we are in a state of war, it makes sense to have more voices on the council. Particularly for more eyes on the regional happenings.

Gorundu has been a long standing member of the region, the executive government and has served as Delegate.

Now I fully understand there was an attempt to recall him out of activity/communications concerns. Many of the SC have been in that boat before themselves, even if in other offices. He copped that on the chin and bowed out peacefully.

I think Gorundu would be a fine addition to the SC and will support his admission.
Speaking only with respect to Gorundu himself, he is someone with both a long career in The North Pacific and considerable knowledge of the wider NS gameplay world; both would serve him very well as a Security Councillor. I have no concerns about his qualification for the role.

I'm guessing - and I could be way off-base here - that the reason the SC thinks that it is "not the right time for him to be in another position of trust in the region" is not necessarily because of the activity issues that led to his recall, but more so because of the way he tried to fight his recall. Is that perception accurate?
Speaking only with respect to Gorundu himself, he is someone with both a long career in The North Pacific and considerable knowledge of the wider NS gameplay world; both would serve him very well as a Security Councillor. I have no concerns about his qualification for the role.

I'm guessing - and I could be way off-base here - that the reason the SC thinks that it is "not the right time for him to be in another position of trust in the region" is not necessarily because of the activity issues that led to his recall, but more so because of the way he tried to fight his recall. Is that perception accurate?
For me that perception is accurate, the impacts of bad decisions at the end of his delegacy did play a part in my vote. Gorundu has the qualifications and skills to be on the SC, is Gorundu is recommitted to TNP? Can he learn from that situation?

I voted Nay because the time since it happened has been short, but if Gorundu believes that this is the pathway forward then combined with his quality and experience I can be convinced to support his admission.
I voted for Gorundu for joining the Election Commission, and that was not too long after he resigned as delegate when facing certain defeat on his second recall. I would like to hear Gorundu's thoughts on this matter before passing judgment.
In what I'm sure will come as a surprise to absolutely no one, I must say that there's virtually no scenario in which I'd support the RA appointing Gorundu directly and ignoring the SC's recommendation.

I have a few reasons for this, but what it basically boils down to is three things:

1.) The statement reads "As a result, we are unsure whether we feel comfortable having him on the Security Council, ...". For someone who's had as long a career here in TNP, as others have mentioned, and for someone whose served as both Delegate and Vice Delegate in the past, this message from the SC should be especially telling. Some of our community's nicest, most forgiving members are Security Councilors; and yet, only two of them can confidently be said to have demonstrated dissenting opinions on the statement provided to us by the Vice Delegate.

When they say that it isn't the right time for him to be in another position of trust in the region, I believe them. Because that's exactly how I feel and, indeed, the memory of how he acted to fight against the two recall motions brought against him here back in late July/early August do remain fresh in my mind. That kind of behavior was unbecoming of a Delegate then and it is to be unbecoming of a Security Councilor now unless specific actions are or have been taken to repair the trust lost.

2.) On the aforementioned note, I'm unsure what actions (if any) Gorundu has taken to rebuild his public image since his time as Delegate. Has he returned to working in the executive staff? Has he pivoted back to his roots in the Speaker's Office and provided notable service there? Has he even so much as offered an apology for his actions then or promised to make amends for the trouble it caused the region? The answers to those questions are no, no, and not that I recall.

This is the first we've heard from him in a while, all things considered. This is, in effect, his first move post-Delegacy and it's not one that seems to be going well for him. I can't say it's entirely lost on me why that might be and I'd imagine that it isn't lost on my fellow North Pacificans as to why that is either.

3.) Lastly, I'd like to remind everyone that a rejection here and now doesn't entail a rejection forever. Even if you remain unconvinced by reasons one and two of this post, it's still important to consider the precedent that such a move would set if we here in the RA were to appoint Gorundu directly.

Personally, and just as the statement said, I don't doubt Gorundu's commitment to the region. But just because someone is committed and qualified on paper doesn't mean that it's their time. We just went through one of TNP's most tumultuous periods in recent memory this past year and Gorundu's leadership (or lack thereof) was largely responsible for that. Is it really time for him to join a body that, by their own statement, doesn't want him right now? I wouldn't say so and I also don't believe that his application merits any special consideration that would leave us inclined to overturn the SC's recommendation here.

Thus, I'm opposed.
Last edited:
I agree with Robes on this - this isn't to say that I am opposed to Gor being on the SC in the longer term, just not at the present time - the events at the end of Gorundu's delegacy are still a bit too recent as far as I am concerned.
I don't like what Gor did towards the end of his Delegacy, but those were legal, political acts. I don't think he'd put the region's security at risk and even the SC has said they don't doubt his commitment to the region.

They're rejecting him because they don't like how he played politics, which is their right, but I don't agree with that. I'd support putting him on the SC.
I agree with Sanctaria and McM. Gorundu is a staple of the region, and even when mistakes might be made there is no sense of him questioning his loyalty or dedication to TNP. He is SC material in my view, and I find no significant reason to oppose his appointment given what is required of a SCer.
I will preface this by saying that whilst myself and Gorundu have spoken about what happened between he and I this past year, I do not think we will ever agree on exactly what went wrong there. I have a clear bias here, and whilst I will attempt to put that aside, I cannot guarantee that it will be. I can only say my piece and people can choose to let that factor into their decisions or not.

I do not believe Gorundu has the strategic vision required to be on the Security Council, nor do I believe that they bring anything to the table that the Security Council currently lacks or needs more of. Whether they would be an appropriate member of the Security Council in future isn't particularly relevant for me, but at the current moment in time I do not believe that there is a compelling reason to appoint Gorundu to the Security Council.
It is completely unreasonable to expect an elected official not to oppose their own recall. In a political region such as ours, government officials are fully entitled to oppose attempts to dislodge them from office, so long as they conduct this opposition through legitimate channels. Nothing that Gorundu did in opposing his own recall could be described as improper, even though some of Gorundu's opponents attempted to use his choice to legitimately vote against the recall to railroad through a second consecutive vote that they thought they had a better chance of winning.
As i know,The Security Council has reasons to reject him and i will be personally abstaining to vote
I suppose Sanctaria and Comfed have already largely expressed what I wanted to say. Given the Security Council's statement, it appears the majority of the Council believes my actions last July and August meant that I can no longer be trusted by the community, even several months later.

Was it the activity and communication issues? I have acknowledged my own fault on that front several times, and the circumstances that caused the issues. I don't wish to make light of those issues given the importance of the position I held, but it was, in all of my history in TNP, the only time I found myself unable to execute the duties of my office properly. I believe it has little bearing on how I would do in an entirely different position in an entirely different time.

Was it the lengths I went to to hold on to my position in the face of the recall vote? If I had not genuinely believed that I had the ability to turn things around in the month that I would have had left in my term, I would not have fought to stay on. Perhaps it would have been the right thing, certainly the easier thing, to resign earlier. There were certain people that were angry that I did not do that. But did that mean I could no longer be trusted by the community because I fought to stay on while adhering to the legal process? I hope not.

Finally I suppose I should explain my activities since my Delegacy and why I have decided to apply to the Security Council. As some have noted, I have not done particularly much since resigning as Delegate. There are several reasons for that. First of all, I needed a break after all I had gone through as Delegate. Secondly, the Executive was not exactly the place for me to be as I needed to give my successor the proper space to establish their authority as the legal Delegate. Thirdly, it seemed to me that given the intensity of the debates in the weeks prior, the region could benefit from hearing a little less from me for a while. I contributed to some discussions that I felt would be appropriate, and I continued performing my duties as Election Commissioner. While I definitely have ideas for ways to improve in every part of the region, I did not want to seek an elected position or any positions with heavy responsibilities because I did not think I have the time or the will to work my way up to one of those positions for the time being. I came to the realisation that the Security Council would be the right place to be, given the somewhat more precarious security situation of the region now due to the broken scripts, the Frontiers update and the war against BoM and TCB, and my existing experience dealing with these changes. I was the serving Vice Delegate when the scripts that our security infrastructure had relied on broke, and I was the Acting Delegate when the Frontiers update became live. I believe I have knowledge and ideas that the Security Council could draw upon, and that is why I put my application forward.

The Security Council does not believe I have the requisite trust within the community to serve with them. I hope the community will express a different sentiment. Thank you to all who have expressed support for my application so far. I am truly grateful.
Last edited:
I’m a new citizen not active during Gorundus Delegacy. Can someone explain what happened for which Gorundu had to step down?
I’m a new citizen not active during Gorundus Delegacy. Can someone explain what happened for which Gorundu had to step down?
Primarily it was a lack of activity. There was a failure to communicate and a lack of endotarting. This led to members of his cabinet resigning, and the RA moving for a recall. The recall vote failed by a very slim margin, with Gorundu voting against it just before the voting closed. A second recall vote looked to pass, and Gorundu resigned prior to that vote closing.
I’m going to go ahead and explain my vote, and I will do so by quoting exactly what I said in the SC discussion because it’s not enough for it to be a matter of historical record, it should be heard when the RA is considering this matter. This whole thing has honestly flustered me, because while some people mean well and I do believe they are sincere in what they say, I can’t help but be concerned these views are clouded by personal feelings. These are personal feelings that were well-earned, and I believe Gorundu earned much of the ire he received when he served as delegate. But you’re not voting for a delegate here.

Gorundu legitimately impressed me when he became Acting Delegate and later Delegate. And while he obviously has some issues that get in his way, and there's a lot he could improve on, there’s a lot there that he is capable of and in my opinion he's proven that he was worthy of consideration and of standing among the few who led our region. As an applicant to the SC, he has more on his record than almost all of us did when we applied, and more hands on experience with the SC. The resume isn't the whole story, of course, but it would be crazy to act like the idea of Gorundu joining the SC is itself a crazy idea.

I'm not saying the ending wasn't bad - it was. Gorundu made some bad choices and suffered the consequences for them. And if he ever seeks elected office again, that is something people will need to reckon with. But those mistakes, and that bad ending, I do not see as directly relevant to the work we do, and what he will be bringing to the table. And we all saw what he could do when he was firing on all cylinders and had time to think and prepare. One thing about this job, we have a lot of time to think and prepare and rarely have to act on impulse. With so many of us though, even when impulse is needed, we do not need to rely solely on his instincts and judgment should an impulsive move be required. We operate as a team, collectively.

Briefly, I want to address the idea of "rehabilitation." I do not see Gorundu as trying to rehabilitate himself here. I don't really see how this would accomplish that, given that another notion, the idea that the SC is a "retirement home" for former has-beens in TNP to go to the SC to die, is so prevalent in this community. If anything, there are some who would see his joining the SC as being a result of having nothing better to do or wanting something important but without wanting to stay involved...We fight against these inclinations all of the time, we all struggle to be better than that, but sometimes in practice that just isn't how it is. I wouldn't say that means we aren't committed, or don't want to continue to give back to the community, and there's no second SC evaluating how consistently and enthusiastically we do SC stuff to decide if our commitment is sufficient. It can be hard, after what happened last year, for someone like Gorundu to jump back on the horse and get jobs let alone run for office. The SC is supposed to look at things differently than the purely political, value other qualities more, consider the ramifications of having a seat at our table and working with the people here. I worry that our focus in this case is more on those external things, things that will certainly matter in an RA vote, but aren't exclusively or even the most important factors for us to consider.

You have good reason to doubt his odds in the RA. You may prefer that their comfort with him carry more weight...But as a matter of historical record, of saying whether he has the experience and demonstrated loyalty to this region, that he can look out for its security and contribute something insightful to that cause, I think it's obvious he has it. It's no secret I've had my run-ins with him and he's driven me nuts in the past, but I've sat on this council with individuals who had the same kind of relationship with me, and it wasn't a problem. He wouldn't be either. He may lose this nomination vote, but I am going to give him credit where it is due and signal that I do think he has the stuff for this role. That's why he has my vote.

I know that for some people I have a reputation for being overly kind to applicants, for being willing to give them a try when few others will. And maybe you’ll just say that’s what I’m doing here. It doesn’t really matter to me. There is no objective standard for what is the right combination of factors for someone to join the SC. Former officeholders who have been in the community a long time and aren’t a threat generally get in almost by default, whether they say a lot or do anything once they get on the SC. So I know every person has his or her reason for voting and will apply those standards, and many of you feel Gorundu blew it last year and you don’t want him in any place of significance or where he may apply his judgment that you may feel you have reason to doubt. Fine. But I feel it is only right that I point out all the ways that he does make sense for this role and how we give him short shrift when we emphasize certain things which, to be fair, the entire region doesn’t even see eye to eye on. Ultimately if the council as a whole felt they couldn’t nominate him, that says a lot. And that’s why the RA has to step up more and really clearly indicate how they feel about this.

I want to finally express my disagreement with how the SC statement is being interpreted. I do not, and the council does not, believe Gorundu is a security threat or untrustworthy. I welcome any member to express the opposite sentiment if they feel that way but that’s something I’m confident about. A position of trust still requires relying on someone’s judgment and creates an opportunity where a crisis may occur and that person may have to step up and make a snap decision. The way I see it, many on the council are wary of Gorundu making such decisions. That’s not the same thing as whether he is a trustworthy person, and it should also be noted that such a scenario is highly unlikely to ever be relevant in terms of what we do. It was rare enough for a delegate to be in his shoes.
Seeing a motion and a second, I am scheduling a vote to beging at (time=1707997028).