Dreadton's Security Council Application
- Thread starter Dreadton
- Start date
Part of the duty of the Security Council is to keep an eye on trends and think about potential attack vectors. The Security Council is in a vulnerable position right now. The things we are doing now will set up how the Security Council will function for the near future. We are a tradition based society. I express concerns about the future risk to the region if we continued the path where more of the Executive is staffed by Security Councilors and Vice Delegates, and vise versa. We currently have a sitting Delegate on the Security Council, the Vice Delegate is also the Chief of Staff. While I do not believe they will coup the region, we should consider how this can play out if bad actors reach this position in similar circumstances. What if (AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) Ruben did want to coup. He has an excellent position to bring people into the Security Council that he wants. The Vice Delegate who is the traditional eyes of the SC in the Executive, is also the Chief of Staff, which way could that fall in the worst case scenario? So I express this concern as my answer to the question about what the Security Council is doing and what I would change. While the possibly of the worst case is low, it remains the biggest attack vector we currently have and its the duty of the Security Council to address it and have a plan.
I will redirect you to this part of your statement, as this part is what I am asking about.
Your statement says I left the government on several occasions, sometimes quite abruptly. A plain text reading of this line implies that I have left the government abruptly and without reason multiple times. yet your follow up response goes back to my leaving from my last positions, one that was addressed. Can you expand on this so I can better understand your concern?
You left on two occasions since I've been around. Once as Minister of Culture, in a rather rude way, and as Security Councillor, in the most explosive way possible, casting suspicion on an institution that works on trust. I have seen no change in behaviour or attitude because you haven't been involved at all since. You say you were petty and you've apologised to Ghost for calling him a snake. That's a start. I have no reason to believe you won't repeat this, however, given that actions speak louder than words. There have been no actions apart from your controversial mod actions that angered the entire community, and I had to intervene to clean up your mess and speak to allies about how you're not actually a bad person. That's OOC, though, but it's currently the only thing I have to go off of because your other involvement in regional affairs has been rather unserious and unnoteworthy.
Since the questions and answers have been declassified, I'll repost my comments on them here.
I take a lot of issue with this paragraph. I can't help but feel referred to in this section, and I must say it gives me an icky feeling. Seeing problems where there aren't any is paranoia, a feeling that can rarely be acted on in my experience. If he wants the SC to manage its own business without interference from the Delegate, fair enough, but that's also not a problem. The Security Council is technically a part of the executive branch, but it's not subservient to or an extension of the Delegate. It's a check and balance. I do not recognise this problem, and it feels like he's seeing things that aren't there. Alternatively, he feels as though the Delegate's resources in the executive shouldn't be at the disposal of the SC. That is something I object to in every capacity. My government is committed and will always be committed to helping the SC in its efforts in any way possible. It's impossible for the two not to be intertwined in at least some capacity. It is the Integration Ministry that keeps encouraging the gameside to endorse us, it is the Foreign Affairs Ministry that keeps us informed on foreign threats as they develop, and it is the intelligence that the Delegate receives from various sources that helps this council do its job. One cannot survive without the other.
The Security Council is independent in every way possible. I do not see that changing any time soon, and I find the implication that this has changed somehow to be strange and baseless. Political repercussions are impossible because the Delegate has no legal authority over this Council and never will. I also find it a rather amusing insult to say that we would be too scared to act in a coup scenario out of fear of political repercussions. We are the political repercussions if the Delegate does something they shouldn't.
I assume this is referring to how the Delegate and the Vice Delegate interact with the SC when it does SC business. Every Delegate and Vice Delegate knows their role and position in this council, and when they don't, they get told off. This is not that deep at all. If he's referring to how the Vice Delegate has taken a more active role in the executive government, this simply depends on the person and how close they are to the Delegate. I was really involved in the executive as VD, because I was also serving as Chief of Staff. Voop is in the same boat. Marcus wasn't, Sil wasn't. This seems like a battle that should be fought in the RA or during election season rather than in the SC. It introduces politics into this place, one of the few places where we aren't out to fight one another based on ideology or political ideas.
I have read your post and don't think most of it is in need of response. It feels like you are taking a personal affront to a basic security assessment. My position is not new, i have expressed it offhandedly in the past.
I will address your reference to a moderation action, as I have also brought up my mod experience it is only fair. The "angry community" you refer to was a group of players who came in to force the mod team to act against a member in a way that they wanted us to act. Why they came for this particular reason I can only speculate. We as a team prefer to take time and review facts when we are able before making a decision. I moderated them the same way I would moderate everyone else where, should they attempt to bully and pressure people, and we cannot take political and foreign affairs consideration into account when performing moderating duties. It is one of the core reasons we keep the two separated. Sometimes I am a bit heavy handed and aggressive in actions when I feel the need to act quickly, thus I tend to request feedback from other team members after acting and have them review.
I will address your reference to a moderation action, as I have also brought up my mod experience it is only fair. The "angry community" you refer to was a group of players who came in to force the mod team to act against a member in a way that they wanted us to act. Why they came for this particular reason I can only speculate. We as a team prefer to take time and review facts when we are able before making a decision. I moderated them the same way I would moderate everyone else where, should they attempt to bully and pressure people, and we cannot take political and foreign affairs consideration into account when performing moderating duties. It is one of the core reasons we keep the two separated. Sometimes I am a bit heavy handed and aggressive in actions when I feel the need to act quickly, thus I tend to request feedback from other team members after acting and have them review.
Last edited:
One would figure that a concern by a member of the Security Council would be worth responding to, as someone applying for the body and wanting to force it through the RA rather than accept the SC’s judgment. Sure, I felt referred to, but that does not mean I take offence to what you said. What I did say is that it’s a nonsensical concern based on paranoia rather than facts. These things are done with a strategy for continuity in mind and because the person in question is good at what they do, not some elaborate coup plot that you want to fantasise about. There are so many layers in our region’s political and security landscape that it’s practically impossible to coup that way. As far as I know, you’ve never had an affinity for that side of politics, though, so I’ll forgive you for not understanding how that part of governing works.
As for the moderation part, I’m sure you followed procedure. Is it also part of that procedure to assume the community knows what you’re doing, and when it becomes clear they don’t, use what you did as an argument against a member of the community to dunk on them for expressing their concerns. Succeeded by you saying that folks should just eat each other alive and that you can’t be bothered. The amount of complaints I got was unbelievable quite frankly. That’s OOC though, so I don’t want to keep harping on that. I’m not an idiot, I know why the two are separate. At the end of the day, though, moderation practices reflect on the region in all ways even if they arguably shouldn’t.
For months the SC has been talking about how to increase our ranks. We can perform best with a team of about 9-12 members. Strategically, we are less secure when we dip below 7. Currently we have only 6 members. We really need trustworthy citizens who are willing to step up and help protect our region.
I invited Dreadton to apply, knowing how committed he is to TNP. I know that he puts in a lot of work behind the scenes every day. Because he has earned the region’s trust by serving as VD, and as he would be a returning member to the SC, I believed he was a perfect choice.
I have been really surprised at how hard Ruben has been pushing back on this application. I find I am unable to impress upon Ruben the seriousness of our need to fill our ranks expeditiously.
In the official SC statement posted above, it reads, “some members also believe that the SC should invest in new talent instead of reverting back to inviting former members.” That is not my position at all. There is no reason we cannot do both. The SC does not have a limited number of spaces available, and more people should be encouraged to serve.
The statement also mentions needing conflict resolution skills and foreign affairs experience to be on the SC. While they are nice things to have, they are not crucial to the job. What really matters is keeping your endorsements up, surveying for threats, and maintaining the trust of the region.
Dreadton has the numbers, and he has the experience to do what is needed. I sincerely hope the RA will support his admission to the SC.
I invited Dreadton to apply, knowing how committed he is to TNP. I know that he puts in a lot of work behind the scenes every day. Because he has earned the region’s trust by serving as VD, and as he would be a returning member to the SC, I believed he was a perfect choice.
I have been really surprised at how hard Ruben has been pushing back on this application. I find I am unable to impress upon Ruben the seriousness of our need to fill our ranks expeditiously.
In the official SC statement posted above, it reads, “some members also believe that the SC should invest in new talent instead of reverting back to inviting former members.” That is not my position at all. There is no reason we cannot do both. The SC does not have a limited number of spaces available, and more people should be encouraged to serve.
The statement also mentions needing conflict resolution skills and foreign affairs experience to be on the SC. While they are nice things to have, they are not crucial to the job. What really matters is keeping your endorsements up, surveying for threats, and maintaining the trust of the region.
Dreadton has the numbers, and he has the experience to do what is needed. I sincerely hope the RA will support his admission to the SC.
- TNP Nation
- Ethnon
I agree 100% with what @Great Bights Mum has said so eloquently here https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9200430/post-10782206.
I too was truly shocked at how the SC voted on this and what was said about Dreadton.
This should have been a 'no brainer' recommendation from us.
The number one commodity for an SCer and why they should be an Scer is regional trust and I truly believe he has that in Aces.
He was an excellent SCer and VD and has great knowledge and experience, more than enough to 'bring to the table' of the SC.
I have known and worked with Dreadton over the years, not just as an Scer.
He has served this region and continues to do so with his hard work, support and commitment.
I too, sincerely hope the RA will support his admission to the SC.
I too was truly shocked at how the SC voted on this and what was said about Dreadton.
This should have been a 'no brainer' recommendation from us.
The number one commodity for an SCer and why they should be an Scer is regional trust and I truly believe he has that in Aces.
He was an excellent SCer and VD and has great knowledge and experience, more than enough to 'bring to the table' of the SC.
I have known and worked with Dreadton over the years, not just as an Scer.
He has served this region and continues to do so with his hard work, support and commitment.
I too, sincerely hope the RA will support his admission to the SC.
Last edited:
While I haven't been involved much in Government, and not been around the person in question most, I do agree with @Great Bights Mum in that the SC may need more members to ensure security in the region and to boost our numbers.
I feel like former SCers and/or current members of the high levels of Government would probably be the most likely to potentially join.
I feel like former SCers and/or current members of the high levels of Government would probably be the most likely to potentially join.
- Pronouns
- he/they
- TNP Nation
- Islandwalk
As requested, Dreadton's resignation has been moved to a public archive.
- TNP Nation
- PotatoFarmers
I thought to share my opinion regarding the matter.
I voted against the SC recommendation out of 2 gripes: 1) The initial attitude & response towards answering standard questions; and 2) What read to me like a complaint that the SC is "too integrated" with the Executive.
The first point is really as is. I feel disturbed that the initial response to standard questions we ask every applicant was a simple two-liner that was a non-answer in my opinion. Eventually of course, there was answers provided to the questions, but it didn't help change my initial impression of the application as is. The second point didn't sit well with me. The explicit wording was that they felt the current SC was too much under the influence of the Executive, in particular the Delegate's office. I cannot agree with that opinion, definitely felt it sounded like question the trustworthyness of institution they wanted to join, and therefore was convinced to vote against the recommendation.
I am now going to float the idea that I voted against an SC recommendation of the application, knowing that I might very well still support the application in the RA. For one, GBM couldn't put it better - the SC right now is definitely suffering from a lack of people. 6, including 1 who sits in the Delegacy, is not acceptable numbers for the Security Council. For another, I definitely still have some trust and faith in Dreadton as a citizen, and believe having them on the SC will bring forth another trustworthy member who can also provide different opinions to our discussions.
I will say I understand Ruben's concerns about whether a body with however-long-as-you-like tenure should try to bring in more new faces and fresher blood on board. This concern definitely has merits, I don't think its purely targeted at Dreadton, it just so happened Dreadton was the first fresh application in a while (I don't count Rocketdog's re-application as a fresh application) At this stage, however, I think that feels more like a want rather than a need, ultimately given we have no number limits, we can very well invite the same people who we think deserves a spot at the table.
I voted against the SC recommendation out of 2 gripes: 1) The initial attitude & response towards answering standard questions; and 2) What read to me like a complaint that the SC is "too integrated" with the Executive.
The first point is really as is. I feel disturbed that the initial response to standard questions we ask every applicant was a simple two-liner that was a non-answer in my opinion. Eventually of course, there was answers provided to the questions, but it didn't help change my initial impression of the application as is. The second point didn't sit well with me. The explicit wording was that they felt the current SC was too much under the influence of the Executive, in particular the Delegate's office. I cannot agree with that opinion, definitely felt it sounded like question the trustworthyness of institution they wanted to join, and therefore was convinced to vote against the recommendation.
I am now going to float the idea that I voted against an SC recommendation of the application, knowing that I might very well still support the application in the RA. For one, GBM couldn't put it better - the SC right now is definitely suffering from a lack of people. 6, including 1 who sits in the Delegacy, is not acceptable numbers for the Security Council. For another, I definitely still have some trust and faith in Dreadton as a citizen, and believe having them on the SC will bring forth another trustworthy member who can also provide different opinions to our discussions.
I will say I understand Ruben's concerns about whether a body with however-long-as-you-like tenure should try to bring in more new faces and fresher blood on board. This concern definitely has merits, I don't think its purely targeted at Dreadton, it just so happened Dreadton was the first fresh application in a while (I don't count Rocketdog's re-application as a fresh application) At this stage, however, I think that feels more like a want rather than a need, ultimately given we have no number limits, we can very well invite the same people who we think deserves a spot at the table.
In voting against the recommendation, my main concern is the ongoing, questionable relationship between Dreadton and Ruben and whether they can work together, especially on a small council. Although we have been pushing for more members, that isn't a guarantee, and if something explosive happens, we could lose more members before we gain (per last resignation). Trust and camaraderie between members are needed, especially when there are low numbers.
Really started on bad footing with the initial 5 standard questions, which didn't help convince me to support the application, especially as I don't fully agree that the SC is too integrated. That said, I do trust Dreadton as a member of the SC, and will provide a well-needed boost in the member count.
I may ultimately vote for the application in the RA, but I believe that each citizen should vote based on whether the concerns presented outweigh the answers provided.
Really started on bad footing with the initial 5 standard questions, which didn't help convince me to support the application, especially as I don't fully agree that the SC is too integrated. That said, I do trust Dreadton as a member of the SC, and will provide a well-needed boost in the member count.
I may ultimately vote for the application in the RA, but I believe that each citizen should vote based on whether the concerns presented outweigh the answers provided.
With that, it looks like we are on the home stretch here. If there are any concerns and/or questions not answered by me that the citizens of this region have requested, please highlight them and I will work to get answers our asap.
Intend to vote for on the RA vote, and I recommend others do the same.
Whilst Ruben is correct that we could use some new talent in the SC, this really isn't a moment to pick and choose. Dreadton provides a trustworthy and able hand to the Security Council which is needed at this time.
Whilst Ruben is correct that we could use some new talent in the SC, this really isn't a moment to pick and choose. Dreadton provides a trustworthy and able hand to the Security Council which is needed at this time.
- TNP Nation
- sil_dorsett
I think Dreadton has adequately fielded the questions presented to him in this thread. As I said, wish I would have known his reasoning for shortening the response to the standard five, but I understand now. Beyond that, due to external RL factors, I wasn't as engaged in the recommendation thread as I should have been. I probably should have gone the other way. My additional hope is that, as Rocketdog put it, the "questionable relationship between Dreadton and Ruben" can, if not overblown in being classified as such, be set aside for the good of the region.
We all have disagreements with each other from time to time. Ruben knows that in his dealings with me, too, but we make things work. Even reversing myself between the recommendation vote and me stating that I wasn't signed onto the SC's official statement resulted in further private discussion between the two of us, but it was a very healthy discussion.
I intend to vote Aye on confirmation.
We all have disagreements with each other from time to time. Ruben knows that in his dealings with me, too, but we make things work. Even reversing myself between the recommendation vote and me stating that I wasn't signed onto the SC's official statement resulted in further private discussion between the two of us, but it was a very healthy discussion.
I intend to vote Aye on confirmation.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
- TNP Nation
- Flydale_North
@Dreadton my final concern is your conduct with your resignation. For instance, you called Ghost a “snake”. That’s really concerning for me, especially since you cited struggles with working with people on the SC in the past.
What’s changed now? Will you be able to work with people you may not like? Or we will inevitably see a resignation citing the same issues?
What’s changed now? Will you be able to work with people you may not like? Or we will inevitably see a resignation citing the same issues?
- TNP Nation
- The Grand Dolphin
@Dreadton, would it be fair to say that you were more casual in initially responding to the questions than you otherwise would've been due to a benign misunderstanding?