Second.
We are now at a vote!
These arenât particulars. Iâm not asking for names or details; the two questions are basically just âwas this unanimousâ and âdid you not do nothing about the endorsement situationâ, with a yes/no answer sufficing. The notion that the answer to these two questions are in any way sensitive is both ridiculous and insulting to the Assembly.
Since the Chair decided to not use their powers as per LPA 2.9 to delay this vote even though there are relevant questions to the CRS remaining, I hereby request a cancellation of the vote as per LPA 1.6, and until that point in time I will vote Nay in protest.
The reason provided has been deemed sufficient by the Chair. However, in order for voting to be cancelled, the original motion must be seconded, after this, there will be a 24hr wait period in which other legislators may be given the opportunity to object to this motion. If no objections are raised, then voting shall be cancelled.
What is your objective in moving to cancel these votes? (I wonât double post in the Pronoun thread, but the question is the same for both). As far as I can tell, there is no provision of regional law that obligates the CRS to answer your questions, and it has directly declined to do so. Is this simply a filibuster?
First, theyâre not my questions.
Second, sure, there is no law that requires the CRS to respect the institution it ultimately answers to, but surely youâd agree that it should do so. Just because something isnât regulated by law doesnât mean itâs proper.
As I said before, Kris (who in this case is ostensibly representing the CRS) is refusing to give even a simple yes/no answer to simple answerable questions. The same question was also reposted in the Pronoun thread, where it remains unanswered entirely. Neither question is in any way security relevant, nor do the answers need to reveal anything about the internal tools and methods of the CRS.
I do not believe the Chair acted with any malice, but I do believe that the Chair should have delayed the vote as per their powers rather than letting it go to vote immediately given that there are open points which are relevant (at least in my opinion) and waiting for those to either continue debating or to fizzle out. This is why I am asking for a cancellation.
No, itâs highly unlikely to make a lick of difference whether Pronoun and/or Henn are accepted in 5 days or in, say, 12. If I had wanted to sink one or both of these nominations, there are other, more extreme (and effective) things that a lone Legislator can do 
I guess what I am asking isâwhat more would you expect to happen before you deem this particular nomination debate to have âfizzled outâ? Questions were asked, the CRS declined to answer them (repeatedly and pointedly). What more can we expect to achieve in this debate over these particular candidates? If the issue is with CRS secrecy more generally, then that would seem grounds for opening a separate discussion.
A point of protest and a hope that Kris or another CRS member will realize the absurdity of this and give even just the vaguest of answers to questions whose answers really shouldnât be controversial or sensitive.
2 Likes
Even though I will vote yes, because Henn truly deserves this, I do have to agree with @Welly that yes the CRS, doesnât have to answer our questions and can decline them.
However, I do find it concerning however, that they wonât answer at the same time, since their our regionâs highest body of security, and should inform the Assembly when it is deemed necessary, the only thing I find concerning is that they wonât questions, when weâre communicating with them, I am probably just overthinking this and I donât think this should become a big issue.
I do not believe itâs a good precedent to set that the CRS can refuse to answer the Assemblyâs questions because they donât want to
(edit: apologies for the spelling mistakes, I wrote this during a car ride and I was tired)
1 Like
For clarification, does this literally mean that if thereâs a single objection the motion is denied, or is there a condition attached to that?
No, I am not nor have I ever claimed to do so. I have always spoken as a CSS member in their individual capacity, which is the same that my colleagues can do.
â
You can continue to insist all you want but I will not disclose the particulars of our internal deliberations. ProfessorHenn and Pronoun received the assent of the CSS for their nominations, which means that we agree as an institution that they are qualified for membership. Whether or not that decision was unanimous serves no purpose.
I apologize if Iâm being nitpicky, but you keep referring to a âCSS.â Is it an alternative/former name for the CRS or something? Normally Iâd believe it was just a typo, but youâve used this abbreviation very frequently in this discussion, while all mention of the Council on Regional Security has been fully written out.
I agree @Legend, especially since you guys are our highest body of security in this region.
1 Like
Seconded.
1 Like
Regarding ProfessorHennâs low endorsement count, I think Henn should leave the CG since the CRS already allows Henn to bypass the endo cap (and a bunch of other powers) without the responsibility of actively upkeeping the count that CG members need to. I have always thought Henn is more suitable for CRS and security decision-making than actively keeping high endorsement count.
The two motions are recognised and voting shall be cancelled at 2024-08-29T05:37:00Z, as long as no other legislators object to this motion.
My understanding is that, if a single motion is made, objecting to the two motions to cancel voting. Then the motions on vote cancellation will be rejected and voting will continue.
1 Like
CSS is a historical name for CRS. Kringle is an old guard.
1 Like
So yeah, one single objection to the vote cancellation motions, and the vote wonât be cancelled and will continue.