Apologies for the extended delay in formally responding in this forum thread. As discussed in Discord yesterday, there was a misunderstanding as to whether the matter could be considered addressed by discussions had in Discord channels by a number of Council members. In the future, forum threads will receive a more prompt response as opposed to relying on our communications in Discord to address the issues raised by South Pacificans.

This has been a matter that has continually been discussed within Council chambers since the matter was first broached. We have held extended discussions internally and consider the following statement to represent the general consensus and majority position of the Council.

COMMUNIQUÉ GRANTING BORDER CONTROL POWERS 12 July 2022 Fellow South Pacificans, We appreciate the matter raised in this thread, Addressing Lack of BC ROs, and while Members of the Council on Regional Security have partaken in general discussions on the issue at hand in Discord, we nonetheless submit the following statement as our official position. It is pertinent in considering the role of the Council that it is primarily if not exclusively a security-orientated body whose responsibilities lie in maintaining the integrity of the Coalition's fundamental structure as detailed in the Charter. To that end, Members of the Council are delegated with responsibilities of Border Control (BC) to act in dire situations. While this game mechanism is purposed towards fulfilling the Council's security role, it nonetheless has a tangential effect in that BC actions can at times be required for non-security-related instances such as spamming. For this purpose, members of the public along with the Local Council (LC) have at times requested BC actions in response. The intent behind the request in this thread is duly noted with respect and thanks. However, the Council evaluates that the granting of BC to non-Members is not required at this time; the issue of how that might come about, as stipulated in the Opening Post's latter paragraphs is for a later discussion, if and when this need is judged to be required. Moving forward, should the LC wish to do so, the Council encourages the LC to submit a written request on these forums formally petitioning for a reconsideration of this matter. This should include an overview of the rationale for the need to increase Border Control access, along with tangible examples of the need such as requests for BC action going unattended and why those instances significantly harmed or disrupted meaningful RMB discussion. Additionally, this request should explain what the LC can do alternatively to work with the resources available to them already (suppression, making a request to the Delegate as outlined in current laws, lodging Getting Help requests, etc.), particularly in terms of moderation policy and practices, and why those avenues would not be sufficient. The Council will reevaluate this request as needed. Faithfully yours, The Council on Regional Security