Dreadton's Security Council Application

Dreadton

Dreadton

PC Load Letter
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Dreadton
My application to the Security Council was rejected with 2 Ayes, 4 Nays, and 0 Abstentions.

I bring my application to the Regional Assembly for review and debate.




My Statement :


Hey guys, my application to the Security Council failed and now goes to you to review. For those of you who do not know me outside my work as an Admin. I have been in the region for over 7 years and have held many positions here. Most important to this was my time as Vice Delegate and Security Councilor. About two years ago, I left formal government work because I got accepted into grad school and it was a great opportunity to further my career. During this time, I continued to work as an Admin here, contributing to the moderation and security of the region, often spending 10-12 hours a week working for you. Now comes a time when I can contribute more to this region as part of the formal government. With the Security Council being half of what it normally is, and knowing how the position works, I thought this is a great opportunity to further help the region and contribute to its well being.
 
Why post this yourself rather than waiting for the VD to do it alongside a statement from the SC on why they didn’t nominate you, as has been traditionally done? Well, to the extent that something that so rarely happens constitutes a tradition. Your post also breaks from “tradition” by not containing a motion. Do you intend to post one only after some discussion has happened?

In any case, I look forward to any commentary by the SC, whether that be their traditional statement or comments from individual members. We haven’t had a failed nomination vote in quite a while.

Edit: The SC’s vote on Dreadton’s application can be found here. I suppose I should’ve said “precedent” and not “tradition” in reference to the VD posting this sort of thread, but whatever.
 
Last edited:
Cretox:
Why post this yourself rather than waiting for the VD to do it alongside a statement from the SC on why they didn’t nominate you, as has been traditionally done? Well, to the extent that something that so rarely happens constitutes a tradition. Your post also breaks from “tradition” by not containing a motion. Do you intend to post one only after some discussion has happened?

In any case, I look forward to any commentary by the SC, whether that be their traditional statement or comments from individual members. We haven’t had a failed nomination vote in quite a while.
Click to expand...

There was a discussion in Citizens Chat on discord were a point was made that the VD is not required to open discussion and the member who's application was rejected should make the effort. I thought that a very good point, and as I said in Discord when asked "I am asking for a lot by asking the RA to override the SC and I want to put forth the effort to earn it."

As for the Motion, I was going to wait till the SC issued its statement, but if you look to the last SC application, abet one that was supported by the SC, there was no formal motion. I will be happy to provide one now.

The Regional Assembly appoints Dreadton to the Security Council.
Click to expand...
 
Dreadton:
There was a discussion in Citizens Chat on discord were a point was made that the VD is not required to open discussion and the member who's application was rejected should make the effort. I thought that a very good point, and as I said in Discord when asked "I am asking for a lot by asking the RA to override the SC and I want to put forth the effort to earn it."
Click to expand...
This is a publicly viewable subforum.
 
Dreadton:
Im not sure your point. I am relaying what I am thinking and said, which is in my prerogative.
Click to expand...
That's not what you said, unless you're suggesting that this "point [that] was made" which you described in detail and thought was "a very good point" was made by you.

My point here is that while I certainly don't think you maliciously leaked, it's still a careless handling of talk from a citizen-only area, which isn't a good sign from someone asking to not only be given access to SC-only areas but to get it over the objection of the SC itself. Or at least that would be my point, if you weren't a former VD and SC member yourself who as far as I'm aware did not mishandle information from those exact areas and did not resign in disgrace, and a current member of the region's community management team to boot. You're very clearly not some run-of-the-mill applicant who didn't make the cut. So I'm very curious indeed to hear just why a supermajority of the SC voted against readmitting you, especially with the body's membership being so low.
 
Cretox:
That's not what you said, unless you're suggesting that this "point [that] was made" which you described in detail and thought was "a very good point" was made by you.

My point here is that while I certainly don't think you maliciously leaked, it's still a careless handling of talk from a citizen-only area, which isn't a good sign from someone asking to not only be given access to SC-only areas but to get it over the objection of the SC itself. Or at least that would be my point, if you weren't a former VD and SC member yourself who as far as I'm aware did not mishandle information from those exact areas and did not resign in disgrace, and a current member of the region's community management team to boot. You're very clearly not some run-of-the-mill applicant who didn't make the cut. So I'm very curious indeed to hear just why a supermajority of the SC voted against readmitting you, especially with the body's membership being so low.
Click to expand...
Ok so you are discussing it in the context that particular channel would maybe be confidential. I think there is still some leeway in how that law would apply there. However, I would point out that discussion of a public document would not likely be classified with how it was spoken about by me in general terms as to what others said, much the same way the court case we recently had in which the Court recommended speaking in general terms with specifics remaining secret. At least that would be my argument should it become an issue. Where as some other areas of TNP discord has a higher standard of confidentiality. As for my specific thoughts, those were issue as my opinion and one I can share freely under our Bill of Rights. While you may argue it was careless, I would argue it was done carefully within the bounds of the law. An argument can be had ether way, on that particular issue, where as the SC areas have a clear and unambiguous line.

I would take you back to my terms as VD where I was the first responsible for the declassification process and required to go through the backlog of documents that had built up over the years and my terms there and as Justice should there be even a partial question on how i would handle information.

As for the SC, I am sure they will have a communal (and maybe personal) response in due course.
 
Last edited:
Dreadton was basically discussing the same issue that Cretox raised earlier in the thread. It's common for political issues in TNP to be discussed both in citizen areas that are and aren't viewable to non-citizens, because we have a mix of them for similar purposes. Not sure I see an issue here, it seems irrelevant to the question at hand.

I do want to hear from the Security Council, and equally from its dissenting members GBM and Marcus, because I was surprised to see this outcome.
 
St George:
As one sometimes prickly pear to another, do you think you can work well with the current SC members?
Click to expand...
I work with people I do not like all that time. Being an old fart like myself, requires putting aside personal feelings in order to get the job done. I cannot speak as to how others may act or respond, but from my side the job will come first. Do not mistake me, I will be opinionated and vocal, but once a decision is made I will work towards accomplishing it. And @St George you are very familiar with how hard I will work from our time when I served under you in the Executive, and you know how hard I will work even if I disagree with the plan.
 
Dreadton:
I work with people I do not like all that time. Being an old fart like myself, requires putting aside personal feelings in order to get the job done. I cannot speak as to how others may act or respond, but from my side the job will come first. Do not mistake me, I will be opinionated and vocal, but once a decision is made I will work towards accomplishing it. And @St George you are very familiar with how hard I will work from our time when I served under you in the Executive, and you know how hard I will work even if I disagree with the plan.
Click to expand...
That is true.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Are you open to bringing more transparency and accountability to the Security Council?
Click to expand...
Interesting Question, what form do you see that taking? Since I first joined, the Security Council records laws were changed that required disclosure after a period of time. It was decided that this would balance the Regions right to know with the Security Council's need to have frank discussions about current matters without worry about political matters. What would you change or want to see?
 
If I saw this...
Hey guys, my application to the Security Council failed and now goes to you to review. For those of you who do not know me outside my work as an Admin. I have been in the region for over 7 years and have held many positions here. Most important to this was my time as Vice Delegate and Security Councilor. About two years ago, I left formal government work because I got accepted into grad school and it was a great opportunity to further my career. During this time, I continued to work as an Admin here, contributing to the moderation and security of the region, often spending 10-12 hours a week working for you. Now comes a time when I can contribute more to this region as part of the formal government. With the Security Council being half of what it normally is, and knowing how the position works, I thought this is a great opportunity to further help the region and contribute to its well being.
Click to expand...
and not your initial answer to the "standard five", I probably would have voted Aye for nomination instead. Your initial response felt very dismissive and disrespectful, but I will acknowledge the fact that you did eventually answer appropriately, and I don't know what may have prompted you to give the initial response other than time saving. If that's all it was, I completely understand. I wholeheartedly agree that you have an outstanding record, and my gripe is just a blemish on it. I can still be convinced to vote Aye on your confirmation vote. When the SC's statement comes out, consider me having not signed onto it.

I am very interested in BW's questions and your responses to them as the two of you work them out.
 
Last edited:
Sil Dorsett:
If I saw this...

and not your initial answer to the "standard five", I probably would have voted Aye for nomination instead. Your initial response felt very dismissive and disrespectful, but I will acknowledge the fact that you did eventually answer appropriately, and I don't know what may have prompted you to give the initial response other than time saving. If that's all it was, I completely understand. I wholeheartedly agree that you have an outstanding record, and my gripe is just a blemish on it. I can still be convinced to vote Aye on your confirmation vote. When the SC's statement comes out, consider me having not signed onto it.

I am very interested in BW's questions and your responses to them as the two of you work them out.
Click to expand...

My initial answer was short due to my misunderstanding of the situation. When I was asked if I would apply, I was under the impression that a consensus was already reached and the process was to be a formality. In my haste and exuberance I provided short answers to get the process going as fast as possible. It required a month during the summer slump to get over the hump into the application zone, and I did not want to loose momentum. In the end, I see it did more harm than good. It was not meant to be dismissive and disrespectful, and if that was the way I came across I do apologize for it and it was not my intention. I do hope my follow up responses and this thread is more reflective of what I am and how I am looking to contribute. You and I have been on opposite sides of a position before, but we were always able to speak frankly and work it out. I hope we can continue to do so here, no matter how this RA vote pans out.

As for Blue Wolf, I am interested to to see what shortcomings he sees and would happy to discuss it. I would be happy to champion changes that fill a need or shortage, but the Security Council much like the Regional Assembly, is a communal process and requires us to work together on it and reach an agreement.
 
Statement from the Security Council on the rejection of Dreadton's nomination​

The Security Council has, at this time, decided against supporting Dreadton's application. This was not a unanimous decision, but the majority of Security Council members did not think it was a good idea to admit the applicant. While we do not doubt Dreadton's trustworthiness, and he does bring numbers to a shrinking SC, there is more to being on this Council than that. Dreadton's track record does not inspire confidence when it comes to conflict resolution. In particular, we point to his prior resignation and the divisive comments made at the time. The Security Council is not appreciative of being prosecuted when our job relies on the trust of the region. His answers to the typical Standard Five Questions were initially disrespectful, given that he didn't answer them, and his responses failed to convince a majority to support a nomination when he did end up answering them.

Councillors raised multiple concerns with his answers. His belief that the Delegate's Office is too ingrained in the Security Council especially concerned some members because it would introduce politics to an otherwise apolitical space. Some Councillors believed that these disagreements are best settled in the Regional Assembly or at the voting booth. Again, we recognise that Dreadton brings numbers to the table in an environment where the SC has a serious manpower problem, however some members also believe that the SC should invest in new talent instead of reverting back to inviting former members. Additionally, there is a lack of confidence in Dreadton's lack of recent or novel government experience, especially in foreign affairs. We have a lot of domestic expertise, but we must not neglect the other side of the coin.

All in all, the application was riddled with concerns, and divisive in general with many different concerns being raised. We thank Dreadton for showing interest and being willing to step up when few others would, but the issues presented to us made us unable to support his application at this time.
 
Dreadton has extensive experience in TNP, and I recognise the contributions he has made over the years. However, I do not believe his current record demonstrates that he is the right person to join the Security Council at this time.

My primary concern is consistency and commitment. Dreadton has left government on several occasions, sometimes quite abruptly. That history matters when considering someone for a position that requires a long-term commitment and the ability to remain engaged in difficult circumstances instead of just leaving. We have also seen relatively little recent involvement from him in the political and governmental affairs of the region. That connects to another concern I raised during the Council's discussion: his familiarity with the current security environment. The Security Council has responsibilities extending beyond domestic affairs into foreign intelligence. We already have considerable domestic expertise on the Council, while our foreign affairs knowledge could use strengthening. Dreadton has not demonstrated to me that he is sufficiently familiar with the current interregional landscape to fill that gap.

I was also concerned by his answer to one of the Five Standard Questions regarding the relationship between the Security Council and the Delegate's office. Dreadton argued that the SC has become too integrated with the Delegate's office and suggested that the Delegate and Vice Delegate should return to being observers, as if that had ever changed. I agree that the Council must retain its independence. That independence is already built into the institution, however. The Delegate does not control the Security Council, and the Council remains capable of acting independently when the security of the region requires it. At the same time, cooperation between the Council and the executive is necessary. The Delegate has access to information and expertise that can be valuable to the Council, particularly through Foreign Affairs, Integration and Military Affairs. Working together does not mean that the Council has surrendered its independence. I therefore found Dreadton's characterisation of the current relationship troubling and inaccurate.

I am also not persuaded that endorsements should carry as much weight as they have in his application. The Council certainly benefits from having enough members to protect against the mechanics of a rogue Delegate scenario. That is an important consideration. But adding another nation to the Council only solves the math problem if that person can also be relied upon to actively perform the role. We should be thinking about how to build the Council for the future. We have repeatedly relied on familiar names and former officials when bringing people into senior institutions. At some point, we need to invest in new talent and create a pipeline into the Security Council. I also have concerns surrounding his ability to work effectively in a high-pressure security situation. The Council needs members who can coordinate with the Delegate, Vice Delegate, councillors and allies when something goes wrong. Given Dreadton's previous conflicts and departures from regional institutions, I do not currently have sufficient confidence that he would provide that stability.

I also think it is important to distinguish between being a trusted member of TNP and being trusted with the specific responsibilities of the Security Council. Dreadton has clearly earned a degree of trust through his years of involvement in the region, otherwise he wouldn't be an Administrator. The question is whether that trust extends to the particular circumstances in which a Security Councillor may have to act: potentially stepping into the Delegacy, responding to a security crisis, coordinating with allies, continuing to serve when the political situation becomes uncomfortable, and more. For me, the answer is currently no.

That does not mean I consider Dreadton permanently unsuitable for the Council. Continuous and serious engagement with regional affairs, greater familiarity with the current foreign affairs environment, or a cleaner record of participation would go a long way towards addressing my concerns. I would be happy to reconsider his candidacy in the future if that changes. For the present application, however, I believe the Security Council made the correct decision. The Council discussed the application extensively, considered both the arguments in favour and against, and ultimately found insufficient support to recommend his admission. I do want to say that I find Dreadton's attitude in this thread better than what I'm used to seeing from him, which is a pleasant surprise.

Nevertheless, I intend to vote Nay on Dreadton's admission, and encourage the Regional Assembly to uphold the Security Council's decision and thus do the same.
 
The SC is correct that my resignation post was worded pettily, and with unearned innuendo at the time. It was done in frustration and while I can make excuses for it, in the end I have to own that I posted what I posted. While I was applying for the SC this time around, I did go back and look at that moment and it was embarrassing. The other day I did DM Ghost and apologized for my words then, and it was long overdue.

The next part has a factual inaccuracy. I did not prosecute Security Councilors, I charged Election Commissioners who happened to also be Security Councilors. SIl and I had a discussion during this, and he pointed out that the case would gut the Security Council if they were found guilty. Not wanting to jeopardize the region I withdrew my case. So. again, saying that it was a prosecution of the SC is a misstatement.

During my answers to the Standard Five, I responded that the Delegates Office and the Security Council being ingrained with each other at a ever growing level was a security risk. Calling it politics is a bit of an odd take, but I guess its understandable. Each division should be in contact with each other, but as what happened with the Election Commission incident they referred to in their statement, it comes at a cost and we should look at that and evaluated it. I hope that the Security Council would take a second look at my statement and ask for clarity. Intertwining of positions may be necessary at times to keep the best talent in government, but at the time when the Security Council lacks man power its a risk that needs to be mediated. Actions taken in one area by a member brings a risk to the region should it go bad.

I am interested in the new requirement that the Security Council has introduced on time frame for government service, this condition did not apply during the last application they considered. However, it is true. The last time I was in government was 2 years ago as I said. Although not being in government is not divorced from the region. As for the Foreign Affairs, they are correct that I am not directly involved with FA and the government. But it does discount the experience I have with outreach and communicating with other regions. As an Administrator, I have during this time frame spoken to other regions related to players and situations, often being careful with the information that needed to be shared versus keeping internal.

As for Ruben's statement that I have left government several times, I would ask more clarity to that point. Many of us here balance the needs of the games with our personal lives. And once again, I did leave government two-three years ago abruptly, as i explained earlier.

I thank the SC for its time, consideration, and feedback. I let my history here, good and bad, speak for itself and open my self to questions from the assembly.
 
Voopmont:
The Security Council is not appreciative of being prosecuted when our job relies on the trust of the region
Click to expand...
To be blunt, tough shit? You're not above the law?
Dreadton:
SIl and I had a discussion during this, and he pointed out that the case would gut the Security Council if they were found guilty. Not wanting to jeopardize the region I withdrew my case
Click to expand...
This is a crazy revelation and those involved should reflect if they acted in a manner that isn't corrupt - the choice to prosecute or decide guilt should not, to be frank, be predicated on whether the consequences for being found guilty might affect the region's security. No one should be above the law.
 
St George:
To be blunt, tough shit? You're not above the law?

This is a crazy revelation and those involved should reflect if they acted in a manner that isn't corrupt - the choice to prosecute or decide guilt should not, to be frank, be predicated on whether the consequences for being found guilty might affect the region's security. No one should be above the law.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, I own my mistakes and my history. I would also direct you to the court filings case, as I was clear (hopefully) on why I withdrew it at the time. It was a messy situation, I was trying to do what I thought best for the region at the time.
 
The statement "the Security Council is not appreciative of being prosecuted when our job relies on the trust of the region". is severely disappointing. Exactly, and that's why you're not above prosecution. Your job relies on our trust. You don't get a free pass from that, and that's exactly why you should be questioned. Your job is of a service to us and to the region, and whining about being prosecuted isn't maintaining that trust, that's for sure..

Additionally, given the clarification that this was prosecuting members of the election commission, who also happened to be Security Council members, I find myself wondering why this was brought up at all.

I understand there are legitimate concerns regarding Dreadton, but I'm not impressed by some parts of the messages I've read today. I don't understand why quitting government a couple years ago, even on unfriendly terms, should be factored into this either.

Also, I'm not sure why the answer "The Security Council and the Delegacy becoming too intertwined" (paraphrasing) is concerning either. I think that's just plain true. I doubt Dreadton claimed that the delegacy and the Security Council should not work together.

I'm not convinced by a lot of the concerns I'm seeing here, to be frank.

I also echo what Madjack / St. George said about that specific court case - that is a deeply concerning instance of corruption, from the looks of it, on behalf of both parties.
 
Last edited:
To reiterate I am not fully versed on the events that occurred but my perceptions of it have informed the above statement. Thanks Dreadton for providing further context.
 
I'd be interested to see Dreadton's responses to the Standard Five Questions and any subsequent questions by the Security Council.

Could the Security Council make these responses available to the public?
 
Josi:
I'd be interested to see Dreadton's responses to the Standard Five Questions and any subsequent questions by the Security Council.

Could the Security Council make these responses available to the public?
Click to expand...

This was a conversation between myself and the Vice Delegate, I am willing to share the conversation if the Vice Delegate Consents. @Voopmont
 
St George:
This is a crazy revelation and those involved should reflect if they acted in a manner that isn't corrupt - the choice to prosecute or decide guilt should not, to be frank, be predicated on whether the consequences for being found guilty might affect the region's security. No one should be above the law.
Click to expand...
If Dreadton is willing to let me disclose our entire conversation in May of 2023, I'll do so.
 
His belief that the Delegate's Office is too ingrained in the Security Council especially concerned some members because it would introduce politics to an otherwise apolitical space.
Click to expand...

Considering the Security Council partly exists to prevent potential rogue Delegates from accumulating power, that's an extremely valid belief.

I fail to see what the issue is, that belief should be uncontroversial within the Security Council and it deeply concerns me that this current Council takes exception.
 
Last edited:
St George:
This is a crazy revelation and those involved should reflect if they acted in a manner that isn't corrupt - the choice to prosecute or decide guilt should not, to be frank, be predicated on whether the consequences for being found guilty might affect the region's security. No one should be above the law.
Click to expand...
Sil Dorsett:
If Dreadton is willing to let me disclose our entire conversation in May of 2023, I'll do so.
Click to expand...
Dreadton:
Sure can.
Click to expand...
Sil Dorsett — 5/17/2023 3:30 PM
I've been getting a lot of messages regarding the results of the last election being inaccurate, and after talking with Lore, Ghost, Gorundu, and Court Examiner Tlomz, what we believe should happen is to make the corrections on the spreadsheet and results page and just take an r4r to clarify what should happen if the posted results are incorrect. Can you make the corrections Lore brought up or restore his editor access to the counting spreadsheet to do that?
Dreadton — 5/17/2023 3:31 PM
I will restore their access, I am not willing to change the votes once the election is certified
Dreadton — 5/17/2023 3:50 PM
specally since this challenge wasnt done in accordance with rule 7.2
Sil Dorsett — 5/17/2023 3:52 PM
good point. I'll tell Ghost to put it on the forum.
Dreadton — 5/17/2023 3:52 PM
its my fault we are in this spot but you know
Dreadton — 5/18/2023 9:25 AM
Im reading your post and its reading to me like you are saying i did this on my own. It implies that I was careless and mishandling the job, cutting out the other supervisor.
Sil Dorsett — 5/18/2023 9:49 AM
What else was I supposed to assume? How do three people make the same mistake? I'm sorry that it came across as I was attacking you, but with your testimony I'm now even more upset. Not at you, but the EC in general, including myself.
Dreadton — 5/18/2023 9:51 AM
You could have asked and if you look in the EC channel not only did i Ping the EC to check, Ghost posted that he had no objections.
Sil Dorsett — 5/18/2023 9:52 AM
I did see that. And I did call out Ghost for misunderstanding how we do challenges.
Dreadton — 5/18/2023 10:05 AM
on the advice of legal counsel I will not unlock the count sheet from the may 2023 general election
Sil Dorsett — 5/18/2023 10:05 AM
That's fine. I don't think we're taking the approach of amending the results anyways.
I'm just trying to piece together what happened, and how can we reduce the chance of it happening again. So it sounds like you, Lore, and Ghost all gave your blessing, and then the errors were found after the results were released.
Fili, Simone, and I all didn't check in time.
Dreadton — 5/18/2023 10:09 AM
yes, ghost reached out after certifiying the results @ — 05/12/2023 2:58 AM CST
approx 12-14 hours after the results were posted
Image
then lore reached out after ghost didnt get any traction with me to make changes @ 05/13/2023 1:00 AM CSt
Sil Dorsett — 5/18/2023 10:12 AM
And then Lore came to me and I also said that I don't think we can change the spreadsheet.
Dreadton — 5/18/2023 10:13 AM
Just_A_Lore
—
05/13/2023 9:17 AM
I talked with sil about it. They are as far as I know of the mind that it can't be fixed after certification but there is no actual laws or real rules about certification. So :ablobshrug: idk
Dreadton
—
05/13/2023 9:18 AM
Does it change the outcome of the election? If not I think a citizen has to challenge each of those.
Just_A_Lore
—
05/13/2023 9:21 AM
It doesn't. I read all the rules and etc and as far as I can tell everything that mentions certification is in the EC rules and it's of the quality of "the supervisors will certify" and "it will be certified" with no actual definitions, rules or etc about what certification does or entales.
then you reached out to me ⁠Dreadton⁠
I reached out for a legal opinion and was told any change or aiding in any change would violate the law, EC rules on public openness, and likely be gross misconduct
Sil Dorsett — 5/18/2023 10:16 AM
Okay, so, you're right. We need to focus on the 6 hour window after the close of voting. The other three ECers, including myself, could have caught this, but didn't. I'll make note of that in the thread.
Ugh... At this point I might just let my term expire and take a break.
Dreadton — 5/18/2023 10:17 AM
i dont think opening the window from 6 to 12 -24 would hurt anything
and we still have the option to close early if all certify
Sil Dorsett — 5/18/2023 10:18 AM
We may want to consider moving certification to the forum, like posting draft results and having each ECer post to affirm or challenge the result.
Dreadton — 5/18/2023 10:19 AM
the 6 hour challenge window is only a rule, so we wont need to go to the RA about it
i think there is wiggle room in the citizen challenge to fix the current results, but i dont have time to handle a case if it came to that
Sil Dorsett — 5/18/2023 10:25 AM
Darcania had an idea about a court appointed election examiner, I assume to review the EC's work on the results. Any thoughts on that?
Dreadton — 5/18/2023 10:26 AM
overkill and more red tap
A bigger window would solve the problem without legislation and yet another appointment
Sil Dorsett — 5/18/2023 10:27 AM
and unnecessary if we patch our processes and make it solid.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 10:05 AM
i am trying to change the URL on the voting template to get it to send to the ballot box and not the boting booth. any tips
ah got it
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 10:07 AM
I was going to recommend using this URL:
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 10:07 AM
the templetes need a good update
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 10:08 AM
Gorundu wanted them moved to the forum. I can try to move them in the couple weeks I have left, unless I get another EC term.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 11:07 AM
sent you some stamps
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 11:07 AM
Oh, thanks! Much appreciated!
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 11:19 AM
use them well since Gor intends to remove me
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 12:21 PM
im sorry about this i was going to let it sit but Gor forced my hand
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 12:38 PM
Did he say why he's not giving you another term? That really sucks, especially since you're committed to improving how we do things, and making sure we're doing things by the book.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 12:40 PM
"Strictly speaking, the blame should be laid on every present Election Commissioner for the mistakes in the results. But knowing you were the one who filled in the incorrect results, and as I recall when you last supervised an election you made similar mistakes that were picked up on by Fregerson during the challenge period, I would feel uneasy nominating you for another term."
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 1:06 PM
Where would you like those stamps to be transferred to, since I'll likely be off the commission and probably everything else? To The Northern Light?
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 1:07 PM
keep em
again sorry
use them for SC or RP
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 1:08 PM
Oh, I'll be off the SC too.
The penalty is Removal from Office, which is likely everything.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 1:09 PM
the court does weird things
plus the prosecutor would likely have a say and dollars to donouts it will be me
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 1:10 PM
I'm not going to fight the charges; I'm just going to plead Guilty. I don't think what I did was malicious, but it was a mistake.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 1:12 PM
Ok before you do that whats the procedure when an election supervisor leaves office during an election they are supervising?
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 1:13 PM
If, during an election, an Election Supervisor becomes absent or vacates their office, the Chief Election Commissioner will promptly designate a willing replacement.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 1:16 PM
alright as soon as i have confirmation that the countsheet ownership has been transfered I plan on resiging from everything, im washing my hands of government work
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 1:27 PM
forum.thenorthpacific.org

Resignation

@Sil Dorsett I will be resigning my position as soon as it is confirmed that the official vote sheet has been transferred to the other Election Supervisor. I am providing this notice in advance so that the necessary steps may be done.
forum.thenorthpacific.org forum.thenorthpacific.org
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 2:20 PM
I assume you're staying on the Regional Bar so you can show me the door, right? You're the only prosecutor Chipoli has available to pick.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 2:20 PM
Kinda got to, give me a min
To be upfront if I am I am going to specify that no one should be removed from the SC that would put us in a security crisis
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 2:25 PM
You're staying on the SC?
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 2:26 PM
Planning on it
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 2:27 PM
Ah, okay. When you said you were washing your hands of government work, I thought you meant all of it.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 2:28 PM
I don’t know what the court is going to do and I don’t want to cripple the SC
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 2:29 PM
Prosecutors and defense counsel does communicate with each other, right?
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 2:30 PM
To an extent they can work out deals but they can’t work to hide things
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 2:31 PM
Do I have to pick someone to represent me or can I represent myself?
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 2:31 PM
You have the right to counsel of your choice, which in my understanding includes self representation
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 3:19 PM
Chip says he's got the spreadsheet, and I have Simone lined up.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 3:20 PM
Solid one moment
Posted that the ownership has been transferred
All you boss
And no longer masked, I will update the EC sheet when I get home
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 5:58 PM
I was going to wait until the Court decided whether to even accept the indictment, and then after I formally elected self-representation, but maybe we should talk about a deal now.
I know I don't have a lot of leverage, but hear me out...
I'm the one that made the mistake in trying to work through the election corrections issue in DMs, so I'm the one you really want to indict. I don't really think the other four needed to be indicted.
And you said before you don't want to cripple the SC, but the court can do anything within the bounds of the law, and we've seen the court ignore "plea deals" and exceed the prosecutor's recommendation.
If I resigned from the EC, and in my resignation I state that I failed to follow the rules and that's why I'm out, and we agreed that I couldn't serve on the EC for some period of time, could that resolve this?
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 6:03 PM
Im mad right now over what Tlomz is accusing me of in the SC, im not clear headed enough at the moment to be objective. Please give me a bit too cool down
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 6:03 PM
Sure
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 6:17 PM
Ok you put your cards down I will put mine,
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 6:25 PM
You mean, talk about it here, or actually go resign and the indictment goes away?
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 6:26 PM
more like what i think happened
You are falling on your sword because I wouldnt play ball with Ghost's scheme and when he realized he couldnt manipulate me into playing along, he started whispering in Gor ear. This is how I think it went down. Ghost caught the mistakes after the fact. He knew if it went public it was fodder against him. So he reached out to me and lore to try an push a backdoor thing throught. Since he got no traction with me, he upped the preasure on lore. Then Lore realized they no longer had access to the sheet and I as owner was the sole party who did. when he learned that he upped the score by going to you and getting Gor and Tlomz involved. When I still wouldnt play and brought my arguement to you, he realize he couldnt maneouver behind the scenes anymore and went public. As punishment for not playing ball, he whispered in Gors ear to remove me from the feild. I think you and Lore got patsied by Ghost, but i can only prove what i got in the court case.
Frankly im inclined to just pull the charges and move somewhere else. Viv was right about this place
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 6:30 PM
I don't think you have to take it as far as leaving TNP in any capacity. I just think rather than going after the whole kit and kaboodle, you just need to make sure the one that is held responsible is the one responsible, which from my perspective is me. I could have stopped all of the DMing and said "You need to take this to the forum," but I didn't do that.
Instead I tried to work out the legality of the issue in DMs, which was a mistake.
But I guess what you're saying is in order to go after who you think is the one responsible, which seems to be Ghost, from your perspective, you need the court case to be against everyone involved.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 6:35 PM
Im saying that everyone including myself had a role to play here and we all dropped the ball. I dont like the fact that good people are getting hurt because we compounded error on error. I think that alot of this could have been avoided and I was willing to fall on my sword over it, but Ghost ego like always got in the way of what is best for the region.
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 6:35 PM
And for what it's worth, I told Ghost to open the publicly visible thread after you reminded me of the EC rules and I realized my mistake.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 6:39 PM
Im going to drop this and I am going to make it clear that it is in the interest of regional security.
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 6:40 PM
Alright. I kinda wished you hadn't resigned from the EC. Counting errors can be fixed, but losing someone who's intimately familiar with the rules and who can keep us all straight is a big loss.
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 6:40 PM
it was clear that i would not be permited to remain
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 6:40 PM
But I guess with our terms ending soon, it would have been worth what, two weeks?
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 6:49 PM
Do you still expect my resignation?
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 6:49 PM
no
im not willing to let my ego hurt good people
Sil Dorsett — 5/22/2023 6:52 PM
Any legislative fix you can recommend for the whole issue regarding whether "removal from office" applies to the relevant office or all offices?
Dreadton — 5/22/2023 6:53 PM
its tricky because you run the risk of having a bad actor needed to be piece mail removed from office. First thought is to change it to where the court removes them from one office and it automatically tiggers a recall for the others.
 
I think there's a bit of overreaction on both sides to this court case. If you review the logs in Dreadton's filing, they show Election Commissioners arguably acting improperly by conducting business in a group DM, and discussing a course of action that was probably outside the scope of their authority, but clearly trying to handle issues with the election in good faith. I don't see anything in those logs indicating corruption or malicious plotting of any kind. Moreover, there's nothing corrupt about refraining from bringing charges in the interest of regional security. The decision to prosecute or not to prosecute always has to take into account whether it would be in the public interest. But I don't think we even have to reach to the level of regional security to think about this - I'm not sure it would have been worth prosecuting even if none of the potential defendants had been on the Security Council. The reality is that we can't expect to prosecute every infraction to the fullest extent of the law, especially when it involves people who are acting in good faith. No legal system works that way.

At the same time, the case was dropped pretty quickly, and given the region's litigious culture, I can definitely see the train of thought that would compel someone to bring it forward. It seems like there was definitely some communication that could have been handled better, but I see no reason to allege any intent to harm the SC on Dreadton's side either. Also ... it's worth noting that this happened three years ago. I had completely forgotten about it, to be honest, and plenty of our members joined the region long after this affair was dead and buried, so I don't see the reason to relitigate it again. Frankly, if all these private conversations are actually released to the public, I would anticipate them being pretty uninteresting, so I don't really see the point.

I understand the concern about committment, and I do recall Dreadton leaving his positions quite abruptly in the past. That said, if we disqualified everyone who has left a position in frustrating circumstances (I know I've done this ...), we would have a government of approximately three people. And to be a bit blunt ... we just voted to approve Rocketdog's SC nomination, and his activity when he's been around has been quite a bit spottier than Dreadton's, even though he doesn't have a recent history of resigning. While I wouldn't begrudge anyone voting against Dreadton's application because of this concern, I am inclined to look past it.

The concern about Dreadton's FA experience is totally baffling to me, honestly. First of all, the Security Council doesn't conduct foreign affairs - the Delegate and government do. FA experience is an asset for any security position, yes, but disqualifying Dreadton from the SC over this issue is absurd when you consider that some members of the Council have been admitted with zero past experience, and Dreadton is a former Vice Delegate. I understand that the SC likely wants to fill the gap left by Pallaith's departure, but what that has to do with Dreadton's application I have no idea.

Not really sure what to make of this issue about the relationship between the Delegate and the SC, but it seems like a boring old difference of opinion, so it seems like an overreaction to bar Dreadton from the SC over it. Unless the argument is that Dreadton's position is so extreme that he would present a security threat, in which case that should be made clear, rather than just saying that it's "troubling and inaccurate."
 
Lucien Mounier:
Also ... it's worth noting that this happened three years ago. I had completely forgotten about it, to be honest, and plenty of our members joined the region long after this affair was dead and buried, so I don't see the reason to relitigate it again.
Click to expand...
Speaking on behalf of the Speaker's Office on this point, we are concerned that this confirmation will be derailed to relitigate an issue from 4 years ago. If people are truly concerned about those events, we suggest making another thread so we don't lose the forest for the trees.

Going back to my own personal opinion, I agree with everything Comfed has said. I am interested in seeing his original answers to the Security Council, as well as his clarification on the Delegate and the Security Council being too ingrained.
 
Josi:
Speaking on behalf of the Speaker's Office on this point, we are concerned that this confirmation will be derailed to relitigate an issue from 4 years ago. If people are truly concerned about those events, we suggest making another thread so we don't lose the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...
Did Speaker @Ayuzh authorise you to speak on behalf of the Speaker's Office? Only the Speaker has the power to shut down RA debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top