Kasch for Vice Delegate

Kaschovia

Under the Sakura
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Kaschovia
Discord
kaschovia

FAAGRjo.png


I am Kaschovia and I have decided to seek reelection as Vice Delegate this election cycle.​

Why am I running?

I have greatly enjoyed working as Vice Delegate and Chair of the Security Council and I will continue to show that I take pride in my care for this community and the democratic values that we all share. I hope to offer my services to the North Pacific for four more months and I hope that you see what was seen in me back in May.

Why should I get your vote?

I am active, responsible, endorsed/influenced, four-months experienced, communicative, dedicated and have been exposed to the duties and responsibilities of the position. I put these qualities in a basic form because I don't think running for Vice Delegate requires the same platform length or detail as running for other positions. There is limited flexibility given to this position, but the importance of a competent Vice Delegate is immense.

What will I do if I am elected?

I will do what I must as Chair and Vice Delegate. It would be unnecessary for me to prolong my campaign by dedicating individual paragraphs to each of the items in the following list, so they are in a format that is direct and to the point. The security checks, the WADP award volumes, maintaining endorsements, discussing security matters with the Council, dealing with SC applications, answering questions from the VD's Desk, watching the Delegacy and keeping endo-tarters at bay. These things are not what you should be worried about me ignoring - they will all be done. After four months of learning and experience, I know what my duties are and I am confident in my ability to fulfill them.

I answered questions from Zyvetskistaahn and Crushing Our Enemies in the Vice Delegate's Desk thread over last term about conducting discussions on rulings for the public disclosure of SC information. This wasn't a discussion that I wanted to force upon the Council, but I will make an effort to advance the discussion within the conditions by which the Council decides to hold them. I refrained for the remainder of the term so the discussion could begin on the back of an election, whether I am elected or not. There was not enough time to go over everything, establish the varying sides of the argument and come to a conclusion; should I be chosen to serve another term as Vice Delegate, I can say for certain that I will begin the discussion.

I admire the efforts of previous Vice Delegate's in bringing the Security Council more to the attention of the gameside players and allowing both sides the opportunity to communicate. I intend to continue doing this through polling, surveys, group Q&As, voice chats/interviews, memoirs/historical accounts, SC-themed events, get-to-know-us-better type games, encouraging SCer posting on the RMB and listening to the Council and their own ideas on gameside-SC relations. I believe in the quality of work over the quantity of work, so I must be careful not to be too generous with my time on sub projects and ideas. I will always try to put matters of security before everything else.

As words are but words and actions are but actions, I hope you can see that I intend to act upon my words in the interests of security, democracy and honesty.

Thank you.

If you wish to show support for this campaign, there is no need for a badge. Simply paste the code below into your signature and it will show my campaign hashtag as a link to this thread (#KaschForViceDelegate).
Code:
[url=http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9075511/1]#KaschForViceDelegate[/url]
 
Hello, Kasch, glad to see you running for reelection! We've got two strong candidates so far, and I wish you both the best of luck in this election. With that said, a few questions for you.

  1. In what ways do you consider yourself to be a better choice than your opponent?
  2. What do you believe you can improve in the Vice Delegate's office over the previous term?
  3. What skills have you gained during your last term that you believe should make this term better than the previous?
  4. Last term you've maintained a relatively active presence in the Delegate's executive. Do you plan to continue your involvement? Get more involved? Lessen your involvement?
  5. How knowledgeable would you say you are with laws concerning the Vice Delegate and the Security Council? Would you say you've become more knowledgeable and more comfortable with these laws since you began?
 
Darcania:
Hello, Kasch, glad to see you running for reelection! We've got two strong candidates so far, and I wish you both the best of luck in this election. With that said, a few questions for you.

  1. In what ways do you consider yourself to be a better choice than your opponent?
  2. What do you believe you can improve in the Vice Delegate's office over the previous term?
  3. What skills have you gained during your last term that you believe should make this term better than the previous?
  4. Last term you've maintained a relatively active presence in the Delegate's executive. Do you plan to continue your involvement? Get more involved? Lessen your involvement?
  5. How knowledgeable would you say you are with laws concerning the Vice Delegate and the Security Council? Would you say you've become more knowledgeable and more comfortable with these laws since you began?
Thank you for the questions, Darcania! :)

1) I see it rather simply. I have had four months of exposure to the pressures, responsibilities, expectations, and duties that the Vice Delegate must face. I know what the position demands and I'm confident in my ability to meet whatever those demands may be. Siwale, however, lacks that raw exposure. I ran with half the knowledge I have about the SC and the Vice Delegacy in May, so I understand how it must be in the position of a previously unelected candidate but it comes down to whether you would vote for previous experience or the promise that experience will be acquired.

2) I need to improve my involvement on the RMB and within the game side areas of the region. I should improve my double-checking because I found myself making minor, but silly mistakes from time to time the last term so I think I need to start triple and quadruple checking more often. I need to improve on getting security checks done within a day of them being posted, but I use the time I allowed legally to step back, evaluate the applicant properly over the course of a few days and then execute my judgment.

3) You get the hang of it or you improvise for 4 months. There are no skills that I could say I have picked up, rather simply expanded my knowledge of the position in general.

4) In short? No. I don't plan on being as involved as I have been this term. I will retain my membership in each ministry, and do what little I can when possible, but I will not be putting any executive work first.

5) My legal learning curve is still relatively large and I am constantly learning about law in the North Pacific and about the SC. I have a long way to go, but I know what I need to.
 
I have a number of questions, most of which are in some way or another follow-ups on questions I have asked you before.

You have mentioned in your statement that you intend to make an effort to advance the Security Council's discussion of the disclosure of information it holds. May I ask whether you are supportive of the Council moving towards greater transparency through the implementation of a system of disclosure? (I presume, from answers you gave at the last election that you are, but I do appreciate that your view may have evolved)

You have also mentioned (here) that, in your estimation, there would be no problem in the Council discussing any rule changes publicly. The Council has, previously, discussed its rule changes publicly and this is a matter which, it appears, would be within your purview as the Chair of the Council. Would it be your preference that such discussion was conducted publicly (I appreciate you have noted that that you think the Council's view on the matter ought to be respected) and, in any event, would you commit to ensuring that the public is kept updated on the course of any discussion if it does transpire that it shall be held secretly?

At the last election, I asked whether you thought the Council was too few or too many in number, or about right (as well as whether you had any informal standards you thought applicants ought to meet), may I ask if your view has changed, and if so how it has changed, as a consequence of your time as Vice Delegate (or events that have occurred during that time)? (for reference, your previous response is here)

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?
 
I always look forward to answering questions from you, Zyvet :P
You have mentioned in your statement that you intend to make an effort to advance the Security Council's discussion of the disclosure of information it holds. May I ask whether you are supportive of the Council moving towards greater transparency through the implementation of a system of disclosure? (I presume, from answers you gave at the last election that you are, but I do appreciate that your view may have evolved)
My view has not evolved and I am indeed in support of such a system. Transparency is a priceless quality for any area of the government to have. I believe, however, that a balance of transparency has to be found and work through a system. I am sure you would agree, some things are worth classification and other things are worth disclosing. A system of disclosure would offer that well-needed balance.
You have also mentioned (here) that, in your estimation, there would be no problem in the Council discussing any rule changes publicly. The Council has, previously, discussed its rule changes publicly and this is a matter which, it appears, would be within your purview as the Chair of the Council. Would it be your preference that such discussion was conducted publicly (I appreciate you have noted that that you think the Council's view on the matter ought to be respected) and, in any event, would you commit to ensuring that the public is kept updated on the course of any discussion if it does transpire that it shall be held secretly?
My view on this has not changed. I cannot force the Council to have such a discussion but I don't think it is something that they will not want to discuss anyway. Spending too much time discussing the 'where' and the 'who' of the issue will only distract from the 'what', the 'how', the 'why' and the 'when' of it. And yes, I'd commit to ensuring that people are up to date with the discussions (through summaries rather than word for word quoting) if the Council wishes to hold the discussion in private.
At the last election, I asked whether you thought the Council was too few or too many in number, or about right (as well as whether you had any informal standards you thought applicants ought to meet), may I ask if your view has changed, and if so how it has changed, as a consequence of your time as Vice Delegate (or events that have occurred during that time)? (for reference, your previous response is here)
The current standards for Councilors are sufficient and the number of Councilors is perfect right now. With the addition of two members and perhaps a few more on the way, I couldn't be happier with the number. :D
What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?
If a nominee is deemed no longer fit for nomination by the Council, then revoking them is the right decision. I don't see anyone at the moment who needs their nomination revoking, but I do think it should be the practice of the Council to review all of the current nominations and make a judgment on them fairly early on in the term so it does not become a back shelf matter.
 
Would you like to run for Delegate at some point in the near future? How would you describe your working relationship with the Delegate?

How would you rate your involvement (and the rest of the SC) with the onsite community - RMB etc? Do you have any initiatives or ideas you would implement to expand awareness onsite about the SC and what we do?
 
Would you like to run for Delegate at some point in the near future?
Yes, I would.
How would you describe your working relationship with the Delegate?
We're good. We communicate through Discord a lot and if there is something that needs to be discussed, we'll talk about it. But since we do very different things through our work, I can only describe our working relationship as 'whenever applicable'.
How would you rate your involvement (and the rest of the SC) with the onsite community - RMB etc?
I'd give it a 4/10. It is one of my primary goals to get this number up a few points, preferably to 10/10, but I'm scratching at the clouds there. All of my plans to achieve this can be found in the OP.
Do you have any initiatives or ideas you would implement to expand awareness onsite about the SC and what we do?
Yes! Lots and lots of ideas!

I really want to work with the Council next term on how we can bring them more into the game side spotlight. Whether that is through polling, surveys, group Q&As, voice chats/interviews, memoirs/historical accounts, SC-themed events, get-to-know-us-better type games, encouraging SCer posting on the RMB and listening to the Council and their own ideas on gameside-SC relations, I'll be working hard on all of these alongside the Council so that by January, a majority of TNPers will know about the SC.
 
Skittleyflakes:
How well do you think you're going to do in this election?
I think I'll win, in all honesty. Siwale is a tremendous candidate but I believe I have more experience.
 
Thank you for your answers, I have some further questions.

To what extent is it the Vice Delegate's role, as chair of the Council, to set its agenda, in terms of matters which the Council ought to discuss?

Is it not likely that the effectiveness of the Council in the event of a crisis would be improved if the members of the Council are known and known to be involved with the proper and lawful governance of the region?

In the thread of your opponent you appear to suggest that Councillors do not have their own informal standards for applicants to the Council, if I may say, I find this quite improbable. Councillors (former, serving, and (one presumes) future) have been quite candid that they have them, time in the region is a consideration,[note]Raven has raised this a few times, Pallaith has, Plembobria has, and McMasterdonia has[/note] holding office,[note]Raven again, Roman, and Pallaith[/note], or other standards, such as being in or near the Delegacy or simply being well known generally. Do you not think that these sort of standards and judgements are appropriate? If they are not appropriate, what reason would there be to vote against any applicant to the Council who meets the formal standards, if there are no informal standards to which they are also being held?
 
To what extent is it the Vice Delegate's role, as chair of the Council, to set its agenda, in terms of matters which the Council ought to discuss?
The Vice Delegate should prioritize matters of greater regional security and should encourage the discussion of those issues before others, but I do not personally believe the Vice Delegate has any right to disallow the discussion of any issue brought before the Council or establish their own agenda on what can or cannot be discussed.
Is it not likely that the effectiveness of the Council in the event of a crisis would be improved if the members of the Council are known and known to be involved with the proper and lawful governance of the region?
That depends on the magnitude and seriousness of the crisis, your definition of effectiveness, the members of the Council in question and how involved they were with such governance.
In the thread of your opponent you appear to suggest that Councillors do not have their own informal standards for applicants to the Council, if I may say, I find this quite improbable. Councillors (former, serving, and (one presumes) future) have been quite candid that they have them, time in the region is a consideration,[1] holding office,[2], or other standards, such as being in or near the Delegacy or simply being well known generally. Do you not think that these sort of standards and judgements are appropriate? If they are not appropriate, what reason would there be to vote against any applicant to the Council who meets the formal standards, if there are no informal standards to which they are also being held?
This is not how I intended to appear because I wrote in the same post that 'the SCers use their judgment to assess the applicant and deem them worthy of nomination or not...' so clearly I must have misunderstood exactly what he meant by 'informal standards'. I apologize for the confusion.
 
Thank you for your answers, I have further follow-up questions
Kasch:
To what extent is it the Vice Delegate's role, as chair of the Council, to set its agenda, in terms of matters which the Council ought to discuss?
The Vice Delegate should prioritize matters of greater regional security and should encourage the discussion of those issues before others, but I do not personally believe the Vice Delegate has any right to disallow the discussion of any issue brought before the Council or establish their own agenda on what can or cannot be discussed.
Might it not be part of the role of the Vice Delegate, enjoying a democratic mandate from the citizenry, to put matters of the reform of the Council to the Council and ensure that it discusses them, given that the Vice Delegate is the only regular means by which the citizenry have input in respect of the Council?
Kasch:
Is it not likely that the effectiveness of the Council in the event of a crisis would be improved if the members of the Council are known and known to be involved with the proper and lawful governance of the region?
That depends on the magnitude and seriousness of the crisis, your definition of effectiveness, the members of the Council in question and how involved they were with such governance.
Very well. In the event of a coup d'etat in which the Delegate and certain members of the Council declare the results of an election invalid, their opponents a threat to regional security, and regional law suspended; might it not improve the effectiveness of the Council, in terms of their ability to appeal to the masses of the region and be convincing to those citizens who may waver, if Councillors are seen regularly to be on the RMB or communicating through telegrams and to be engaged with the political goings on in the Assembly or otherwise involved on the forum?
 
Might it not be part of the role of the Vice Delegate, enjoying a democratic mandate from the citizenry, to put matters of the reform of the Council to the Council and ensure that it discusses them, given that the Vice Delegate is the only regular means by which the citizenry have input in respect of the Council?
It is part of the role of the Vice Delegate to put matters of reform to the council, yes, just as much as it is part of the role of the Vice Delegate to put a variety of different issues to the council. But to ensure that they are discussed? I can't force anyone on the Council to discuss those matters if they do not wish to.
Very well. In the event of a coup d'etat in which the Delegate and certain members of the Council declare the results of an election invalid, their opponents a threat to regional security, and regional law suspended; might it not improve the effectiveness of the Council, in terms of their ability to appeal to the masses of the region and be convincing to those citizens who may waver, if Councillors are seen regularly to be on the RMB or communicating through telegrams and to be engaged with the political goings on in the Assembly or otherwise involved on the forum?
If this were to happen in the future I'm sure you'd get the answer to your question, but since there are simply too many variables to consider in the hypothetical dilemma you've described, I'm afraid I can't provide an answer.
 
Thank you for your answer, I have a further follow-up.
Kasch:
Might it not be part of the role of the Vice Delegate, enjoying a democratic mandate from the citizenry, to put matters of the reform of the Council to the Council and ensure that it discusses them, given that the Vice Delegate is the only regular means by which the citizenry have input in respect of the Council?
It is part of the role of the Vice Delegate to put matters of reform to the council, yes, just as much as it is part of the role of the Vice Delegate to put a variety of different issues to the council. But to ensure that they are discussed? I can't force anyone on the Council to discuss those matters if they do not wish to.
Suppose, then, that the Council were not to discuss a matter of reform which you thought it ought to, what steps would you take to encourage it to do so? What steps would you recommend an interested citizen to take?
 
Suppose, then, that the Council were not to discuss a matter of reform which you thought it ought to, what steps would you take to encourage it to do so? What steps would you recommend an interested citizen to take?
I'd heavily express to them the importance of discussing the issue and the disadvantages of not discussing it. And for the interested citizen, I'd recommend that they continue to advocate for the discussion of the issue until something is done. I can't see the council rejecting a discussion with much force, though, so it's not likely to happen next term.
 
Thank you for your answers, I have further questions that are mostly not follow-ups.

Do you think it would be beneficial for applicants, and the citizenry more generally, for the Council to make any informal standards its members might have more apparent to those seeking to apply to the Council? Regardless of whether it is, on the whole more beneficial than not, what benefits or disbenefits can you foresee to different possible methods of making such standards more apparent?

Are there scenarios where you might think it appropriate to propose the appointment of an applicant to the Council despite the Council having voted not to nominate that applicant?
 
Kasch, with all due respect, I have found the statements and the answers you have given here in many places to be puffed up and full of fluff. As you said, words are words. You have good words, but I feel like you're glossing over a lot. Most of what you outline as ideas for the position have not been done in the term you've had. Did you develop those ideas after having been in office, or might we reasonably expect you to miss the timing on getting those things done this coming term?

The experience argument in particular rubs me the wrong way. You had no serious opponent when you ran for Vice Delegate last term once r3n dropped out, but if he hadn't, you would have had to make a case for why your lack of experience was not a reason to pass you over for r3n. You had executive experience as a member of nearly every ministry, but that doesn't translate to the Vice Delegate's office. Siwale is in much the same position you were in back in May. I want to know why you felt you deserved to be elected last May but why now Siwale's lack of experience is disqualifying? You want us to vote for you based on your experience as Vice Delegate (obviously crucial for someone who wants to be Vice Delegate), but by your own admission you lack a full understanding of the legal aspects of your job.

You also mentioned doing almost all of your checks. You also missed WADP releases. You have pledged to do these things if re-elected and I believe you, but I do not think it is fair to say this is something you can do better than your opponent. Siwale worked in the Speaker's office as my deputy. He distinguished himself as being quick to respond to the checks and get out our digests in a timely fashion. I can see where this would translate to the Vice delegate's office. Given that you also stated the position doesn't require you to write a long platform and go into these things, what are the real differences between you and Siwale? Seems to me it's just a difference in opinion. Can you articulate what those differences are, based on the (extensive) engagement you have had with Siwale?

I think scrutiny is important for people running for these offices. You certainly are scrutinizing your opponent. I find this interesting, though, since Siwale was someone you believed would be a good member of the Security Council and this was obviously a point of disagreement between you and the SC, since they did not advance his application to the RA. Now that he is running against you, have you had a change of heart, or do you still believe he would have made a good SC member? Would you recommend him to the SC again later this term?

Kasch, I have worked with you for 4 months. I can see where you have improved from where you were running for office in May. I believe you have learned from the experience. Can you tell us more about that? In what ways were you naive/wrong running for this office? Where did you make the wrong assumption, where have you been surprised, what do you know now that you didn't take into account when you first ran for Vice Delegate?

Experience matters, and I am inclined to support you for that reason. But the things I have outlined are important in figuring out where my vote is going.
 
Zyvetskistaahn
Do you think it would be beneficial for applicants, and the citizenry more generally, for the Council to make any informal standards its members might have more apparent to those seeking to apply to the Council? Regardless of whether it is, on the whole more beneficial than not, what benefits or disbenefits can you foresee to different possible methods of making such standards more apparent?
Yes, I do think it'd be beneficial for the possible applicants to understand the informal standards that they may have to meet before their application is discussed and I can imagine I would personally contact them to let them know about what the Council may assess them upon.
Are there scenarios where you might think it appropriate to propose the appointment of an applicant to the Council despite the Council having voted not to nominate that applicant?
I can't think of a scenario where ignoring the Council's verdict and proposing that someone be appointed is appropriate, so no.

Pallaith
Kasch, with all due respect, I have found the statements and the answers you have given here in many places to be puffed up and full of fluff. As you said, words are words. You have good words, but I feel like you're glossing over a lot.
If you're going to tell me my statements have been 'puffed up' and 'full of fluff', couldn't you at least find me an example so I can see what you mean by that?
Most of what you outline as ideas for the position have not been done in the term you've had. Did you develop those ideas after having been in office, or might we reasonably expect you to miss the timing on getting those things done this coming term?
I was completely new to the position at the beginning of May, so I had a lot to pick up on and get used to, so it is no surprise you may not have seen me come out singing and dancing.
The experience argument in particular rubs me the wrong way. You had no serious opponent when you ran for Vice Delegate last term once r3n dropped out, but if he hadn't, you would have had to make a case for why your lack of experience was not a reason to pass you over for r3n. You had executive experience as a member of nearly every ministry, but that doesn't translate to the Vice Delegate's office. Siwale is in much the same position you were in back in May. I want to know why you felt you deserved to be elected last May but why now Siwale's lack of experience is disqualifying? You want us to vote for you based on your experience as Vice Delegate (obviously crucial for someone who wants to be Vice Delegate), but by your own admission you lack a full understanding of the legal aspects of your job.
Experience as in exposure to the position and the duties that it entails. If r3n had decided to run, I would have been toast. Everyone knows this. I don't claim to have years and years behind me in the Council, but do you really expect me to ignore the fact that I have been VD for 4 months and Siwale for no time at all? It is simply something where I believe I have the edge over him.

In May, this community elected me because they saw no other suitable candidate as r3n had withdrawn candidacy and I cannot recall if there were anyone else who had the same ideas or vision.

And as for having a legal understanding, my knowledge of the law surrounding the Council continues to grow just as my knowledge of anything in life continues to grow. I'm not going to lie to you about it.
You also mentioned doing almost all of your checks. You also missed WADP releases. You have pledged to do these things if re-elected and I believe you, but I do not think it is fair to say this is something you can do better than your opponent. Siwale worked in the Speaker's office as my deputy. He distinguished himself as being quick to respond to the checks and get out our digests in a timely fashion. I can see where this would translate to the Vice delegate's office. Given that you also stated the position doesn't require you to write a long platform and go into these things, what are the real differences between you and Siwale? Seems to me it's just a difference in opinion. Can you articulate what those differences are, based on the (extensive) engagement you have had with Siwale?
I missed the WADP releases based on things that were out of my control. I did not realize at the time that I needed to provide an email to access the WADP spreadsheets so I couldn't get them released and I was yet to create a new email specifically for the purpose of updating them.

The real differences I have noticed are exposure to the position, time in the region, our respective opinions on certain issues and our ideas and goals for the position next term.
I think scrutiny is important for people running for these offices. You certainly are scrutinizing your opponent. I find this interesting, though, since Siwale was someone you believed would be a good member of the Security Council and this was obviously a point of disagreement between you and the SC, since they did not advance his application to the RA. Now that he is running against you, have you had a change of heart, or do you still believe he would have made a good SC member? Would you recommend him to the SC again later this term?
Being a member of the SC is different to being Vice Delegate. My judgments on Siwale towards the beginning of those discussions were in his favour because I saw the positive aspects of his character in relation to Security Council membership, not Vice Delegacy.
Kasch, I have worked with you for 4 months. I can see where you have improved from where you were running for office in May. I believe you have learned from the experience. Can you tell us more about that? In what ways were you naive/wrong running for this office? Where did you make the wrong assumption, where have you been surprised, what do you know now that you didn't take into account when you first ran for Vice Delegate?
Nobody really understands what it is like to be the Vice Delegate until they actually take the position. That was how I felt. I knew I had less knowledge on the SC and the duties of the VD because I had never been in the position before but now I have 4 months behind me, and it is a good start for my platform.

I don't think I was naive or wrong to run for Vice Delegate in May because I was confident and hopeful for the new term and what I could learn from being in the position. I haven't made any assumptions about being Vice Delegate, I knew it would be no easy task and I was right. Not a lot has surprised me, however, because being Vice Delegate is not exactly going to be a job in which a lot of things change.

I guess something I did not take into account when I ran in May was how much of a role the Vice Delegate played in the WADP. It shares a direct link to endorsements and the Vice Delegate was a much bigger player in that game than anything else.
 
Kasch:
Being a member of the SC is different to being Vice Delegate. My judgments on Siwale towards the beginning of those discussions were in his favour because I saw the positive aspects of his character in relation to Security Council membership, not Vice Delegacy.

But if the whole point of them being on the Council is potentially being Delegate or Vice Delegate, it is contradictory to say you thought they were a good Security Councillor, but could not pull off two positions they have to be ready to hold if they are on the Council.

In the May General Election, Tomb was, up until his hostile actions were revealed, going to be the next Delegate, and moreover, one of the people you had to work with. With four months over, are you adjusting to working with Pallaith, or do you wish Tomb had played fairly and had been elected instead?
 
But if the whole point of them being on the Council is potentially being Delegate or Vice Delegate, it is contradictory to say you thought they were a good Security Councillor, but could not pull off two positions they have to be ready to hold if they are on the Council.
The chances of Siwale, who would have been added to the very bottom of the Line of Succession if they were admitted to the Council, rising through the ranks and having to serve as Vice Delegate or WA Delegate in the case of a crisis are so small they may as well be zero. It is like hiring an intern because they potentially might have to be a manager if everyone else in the company quits or cannot work. It's not impossible, but it just isn't going to happen. My judgments were based on the assumption that Siwale would not be moving from the bottom anytime soon. Sorry if that assumption was incorrect.
In the May General Election, Tomb was, up until his hostile actions were revealed, going to be the next Delegate, and moreover, one of the people you had to work with. With four months over, are you adjusting to working with Pallaith, or do you wish Tomb had played fairly and had been elected instead?
I was fairly impressionable before I was elected and reluctant to give up the ticket because of something that I did not know a lot about, but I believe Pallaith is an excellent Delegate and, in hindsight, I do not think I would have worked well in a dynamic where Tomb is WAD and I am VD.
 
Would you mind telling me what you think of Unibot?
 
It will, and several other players may feel the same.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
It will, and several other players may feel the same.
I do not know enough about Unibot's actions or presence in many areas of NationStates/Discord to construct any legitimate thoughts on him, so from that perspective, I am neutral. Although, since he is banned from the forums, taking into consideration the reasons for his ban, my opinion of him is negative and one of great caution.
 
A better answer than what I had been advised you'd say.
 
Kasch:
If you're going to tell me my statements have been 'puffed up' and 'full of fluff', couldn't you at least find me an example so I can see what you mean by that?
That is how I read many of your responses. I am not trying to nitpick every thing you have said, I think we can both agree that when you were not entirely comfortable with the subject, you presented the best answer you could, whether it had a lot of substance to it or not. I'm not trying to call you out, that was the most polite way I could critique your particular style of responding to questions and comments. This is not a flattering road to go down, so I won't, I will stick to the actual questions I asked you.

Kasch:
I was completely new to the position at the beginning of May, so I had a lot to pick up on and get used to, so it is no surprise you may not have seen me come out singing and dancing.
Sure. Vice Delegate is a huge responsibility, though, so it's not unreasonable to have high expectations for the person in the office. Reading over my question again, I can see how it may have come off as a bit harsh. Put another way, I'm curious if during the 4 months you were learning how the job worked, did these ideas come to you in response to your surroundings and experience, or have you always meant to do them and didn't get around to it? It's basically a time management question as well as an inquiry about how you craft policy. If these things were your response to the past term, what situations did you encounter that inspired you to come up with your litany of ways to bring attention to the SC in the gameside community?

Kasch:
Experience as in exposure to the position and the duties that it entails. If r3n had decided to run, I would have been toast. Everyone knows this. I don't claim to have years and years behind me in the Council, but do you really expect me to ignore the fact that I have been VD for 4 months and Siwale for no time at all? It is simply something where I believe I have the edge over him.

In May, this community elected me because they saw no other suitable candidate as r3n had withdrawn candidacy and I cannot recall if there were anyone else who had the same ideas or vision.

And as for having a legal understanding, my knowledge of the law surrounding the Council continues to grow just as my knowledge of anything in life continues to grow. I'm not going to lie to you about it.

Everyone knows you have more experience, you are the incumbent. Unless your opponent was a former Vice Delegate or member of the Security Council, your respective experiences would not be a match. I would not expect you to ignore it, but I also would not expect you to brandish it about as if it were a talisman designed to banish Siwale into obscurity. You are making the opposite case this election than you did in May. You also did not answer my question. You won, to paraphrase your own words, because there was no one else to choose. But you ran believing you were worthy of their vote, did you not? Why did you feel you deserved to win despite the possibility and (temporary) presence of more suitable candidates? Plead for me the case of the inexperienced newcomer to the office of Vice Delegate.

I wouldn't ask you to lie. There's a lot about our respective jobs that we have to figure out along the way. I simply brought that up as an example of you excusing inexperience in the same campaign where you argue experience is the winning argument. I don't actually hold it against you, nor do I think the voters should.

Kasch:
I missed the WADP releases based on things that were out of my control. I did not realize at the time that I needed to provide an email to access the WADP spreadsheets so I couldn't get them released and I was yet to create a new email specifically for the purpose of updating them.

The real differences I have noticed are exposure to the position, time in the region, our respective opinions on certain issues and our ideas and goals for the position next term.

I don't want to harp on WADP, but it is one of the distinguishing tasks the Vice Delegate performs and I think you performed it once. Instruction and support was always available and I am surprised you did not know or was prepared to do it after the first one came due to be released. Fortunately, you will know how to do it next term, but I hope you will also own up to your mistakes more forthrightly in the months ahead as well. I know this gave the SC a headache.

I know you have more experience, we already talked about that, and I don't see how time in the region really matters (I was elected Delegate after 8 months after all). Let's focus on those two differences you outlined, opinions on certain issues and ideas and goals. I know you guys differ on those, that's why I asked the question about it. You still haven't told me what those differences actually are. This isn't a tick question, you guys have argued extensively in Siwale's thread, so I know you know there are differences. What are they, in your own view? How do you describe them?

Kasch:
Being a member of the SC is different to being Vice Delegate. My judgments on Siwale towards the beginning of those discussions were in his favour because I saw the positive aspects of his character in relation to Security Council membership, not Vice Delegacy.

To put it bluntly, duh, the positions are different, though to be fair, I did not ask about your opinion of him as a potential Vice Delegate, I asked if you still believed he would make a good member of the SC. I would still like an answer to that question. If I understand you correctly, though, you are saying that you thought he had good character for a member of the SC, but that those traits do not apply to the Vice Delegate role. Frankly, this just creates more questions for me. What good qualities of his character exist that wouldn't also be good for a Vice Delegate? Do you believe the two roles require different qualities of person? What were he positive qualities you saw in Siwale when you championed his SC membership?

Kasch:
Nobody really understands what it is like to be the Vice Delegate until they actually take the position. That was how I felt. I knew I had less knowledge on the SC and the duties of the VD because I had never been in the position before but now I have 4 months behind me, and it is a good start for my platform.

I don't think I was naive or wrong to run for Vice Delegate in May because I was confident and hopeful for the new term and what I could learn from being in the position. I haven't made any assumptions about being Vice Delegate, I knew it would be no easy task and I was right. Not a lot has surprised me, however, because being Vice Delegate is not exactly going to be a job in which a lot of things change.

I guess something I did not take into account when I ran in May was how much of a role the Vice Delegate played in the WADP. It shares a direct link to endorsements and the Vice Delegate was a much bigger player in that game than anything else.

I don't think you were wrong or naive to run, I was just asking if there were any assumptions or beliefs you had about the role back then that you learned were wrong once you were in the job. Put another way, I wanted to get a sense of what you thought the job was and what it entailed prior to taking office, because I believe all serious candidates for office go into their campaign knowing at least the basics and understanding on a fundamental level what it is they will be tasked with doing should they win. You sort of touched on this, but you mentioned the job not being one where a lot of things change. Would you say you feel constrained by the role of Vice Delegate? Is there no area you feel can be improved or enhanced depending on who holds the office? If it's static, what difference does it make if you or Siwale, or heck, even Hong Kong wins?

Kasch:
The chances of Siwale, who would have been added to the very bottom of the Line of Succession if they were admitted to the Council, rising through the ranks and having to serve as Vice Delegate or WA Delegate in the case of a crisis are so small they may as well be zero. It is like hiring an intern because they potentially might have to be a manager if everyone else in the company quits or cannot work. It's not impossible, but it just isn't going to happen. My judgments were based on the assumption that Siwale would not be moving from the bottom anytime soon. Sorry if that assumption was incorrect.

I said you had answers full of fluff, but honestly a lot of these were pretty snarky, like that one. When you suggested Siwale join the SC, you did so in part expecting he would not advance to the top of the line of succession? Why would you support an applicant you did not believe capable of possibly serving as Delegate, or serving with others who are in no small part former Delegates and Vice Delegates? That is elite company, so even if you didn't think LoS would be a big deal, wouldn't it still matter what kind of caliber the candidate has? Why would someone be worthy of serving on the SC but not up to the job of Vice Delegate?

Kasch:
I was fairly impressionable before I was elected and reluctant to give up the ticket because of something that I did not know a lot about, but I believe Pallaith is an excellent Delegate and, in hindsight, I do not think I would have worked well in a dynamic where Tomb is WAD and I am VD.

That election was close before the fallout, Bootsie >.>

I appreciate that sentiment, and I am glad you said it because it gives me a chance to speak similarly to you now. As I said before, I have worked with you this past term and have seen you grow in the role. I'm sure you may get the idea that with these questions I am opposed to your continued service as Vice Delegate. I am not. But you got a free ride last election and there were some deficiencies I wanted to address. You are wielding your incumbency like a club and glossing over many of these questions. I want you to make as clear and strong a case as you can for this vital office. We only get better with time, and another term in office will allow you to grow more confident and capable in the role. You have proven that you can do it. I think whether someone votes for you or Siwale, depends on the policy debate you guys have been having. I'm trying to get you to articulate that while calling out the style and the other, more distracting parts of the campaign I observed. It's meant well, I assure you. You have been easy to work with and I know another 4 months will see us continue to collaborate on good terms. Please I hope you see these questions not as something discouraging, but as an opportunity to improve yourself and to paint a clearer picture for the prospective voters.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Great Bights Mum:
Lord Ravenclaw:
A better answer than what I had been advised you'd say.
Do tell us more. Inquiring minds want to know.
:agree:

Has there been negative campaigning behind closed doors? For SHAME! Bring it ou for all to see.
I'm not going to call it negative campaigning, since I only spoke about it with one person, but twas I who relayed this information to LR.

LR and I was discussing why I would not be voting for Kasch and I mentioned it was due to a discussion in a separate Discord channel where the topic of people's opinions of Unibot came up, and I was surprised that Kasch had no strong opinions of him - particularly surprising because he was a high ranking official in a region where Uni was dealt with pretty damningly and thoroughly.

I am glad to see, however, that Kasch has had a chance to reflect on the matter. I have no intention of holding his previous comments against him.
 
Sanctaria:
mcmasterdonia:
Great Bights Mum:
Lord Ravenclaw:
A better answer than what I had been advised you'd say.
Do tell us more. Inquiring minds want to know.
:agree:

Has there been negative campaigning behind closed doors? For SHAME! Bring it ou for all to see.
I'm not going to call it negative campaigning, since I only spoke about it with one person, but twas I who relayed this information to LR.

LR and I was discussing why I would not be voting for Kasch and I mentioned it was due to a discussion in a separate Discord channel where the topic of people's opinions of Unibot came up, and I was surprised that Kasch had no strong opinions of him - particularly surprising because he was a high ranking official in a region where Uni was dealt with pretty damningly and thoroughly.

I am glad to see, however, that Kasch has had a chance to reflect on the matter. I have no intention of holding his previous comments against him.
Sanct speaks the truth. :)
 
If you do win the Vice Delegacy, what ideas will you consider (if any) of your opposition to improve the Security Council?
 
Sanctaria:
mcmasterdonia:
Great Bights Mum:
Lord Ravenclaw:
A better answer than what I had been advised you'd say.
Do tell us more. Inquiring minds want to know.
:agree:

Has there been negative campaigning behind closed doors? For SHAME! Bring it ou for all to see.
I'm not going to call it negative campaigning <snip>
Boring.
 
That is how I read many of your responses. I am not trying to nitpick every thing you have said, I think we can both agree that when you were not entirely comfortable with the subject, you presented the best answer you could, whether it had a lot of substance to it or not. I'm not trying to call you out, that was the most polite way I could critique your particular style of responding to questions and comments. This is not a flattering road to go down, so I won't, I will stick to the actual questions I asked you.
Thank you.
Sure. Vice Delegate is a huge responsibility, though, so it's not unreasonable to have high expectations for the person in the office. Reading over my question again, I can see how it may have come off as a bit harsh. Put another way, I'm curious if during the 4 months you were learning how the job worked, did these ideas come to you in response to your surroundings and experience, or have you always meant to do them and didn't get around to it? It's basically a time management question as well as an inquiry about how you craft policy. If these things were your response to the past term, what situations did you encounter that inspired you to come up with your litany of ways to bring attention to the SC in the gameside community?
I mention my experience because of the exposure to the responsibilities of the position, I mention the rulings on public disclosure of SC information because of the questions posed by Zyvetskistaahn and COE and I mention bringing the SC into the gameside spotlight because of the polarization between the forums and the RMB (concerning RP, I understand), but I definitely believe there is still more work to be done getting each the SC into the public conscience.
Everyone knows you have more experience, you are the incumbent. Unless your opponent was a former Vice Delegate or member of the Security Council, your respective experiences would not be a match. I would not expect you to ignore it, but I also would not expect you to brandish it about as if it were a talisman designed to banish Siwale into obscurity. You are making the opposite case this election than you did in May. You also did not answer my question. You won, to paraphrase your own words, because there was no one else to choose. But you ran believing you were worthy of their vote, did you not? Why did you feel you deserved to win despite the possibility and (temporary) presence of more suitable candidates? Plead for me the case of the inexperienced newcomer to the office of Vice Delegate.
When someone asks me what I see as a quality that my opponent does not have, I cannot point to a hundred different things with detailed explanations. Experience is one of the things I have in this position, but brandishing it like a talisman would be me disgracing his platform because he lacks experience. I simply posed questions and responses to his ideas and answers.

r3n was a better option to choose when he ran for VD, but when he withdrew his candidacy and told people not to vote for him it gave me hope. Imagine if McMasterdonia, Eluvatar, r3n or any honored previous Delegate ran against you in this election, you would feel as if the odds are stacked massively in your favor. I have nothing to say about r3n that could prove I should be elected over him. In May I played the game with the cards I was dealt during the campaigning and all I did was my best to put forward my case.
I don't want to harp on WADP, but it is one of the distinguishing tasks the Vice Delegate performs and I think you performed it once.
Twice, and my reasons for not performing the first two I have already explained.
Instruction and support was always available and I am surprised you did not know or was prepared to do it after the first one came due to be released. Fortunately, you will know how to do it next term, but I hope you will also own up to your mistakes more forthrightly in the months ahead as well. I know this gave the SC a headache.
I owned up to it at the time; r3n had no issues publishing them while I was getting myself acquainted with the processes of the WADP so I can't imagine it brought on that much stress. I know I was slightly slow off the mark in that aspect but not in general.
I know you have more experience, we already talked about that, and I don't see how time in the region really matters (I was elected Delegate after 8 months after all). Let's focus on those two differences you outlined, opinions on certain issues and ideas and goals. I know you guys differ on those, that's why I asked the question about it. You still haven't told me what those differences actually are. This isn't a tick question, you guys have argued extensively in Siwale's thread, so I know you know there are differences. What are they, in your own view? How do you describe them?
I do not want to speak for Siwale too much, but this is how I see it:

Firstly, Siwale believes that all Security Councilors should be more active in-game and held to the same standards as other government officials (even going so far as to want to introduce legislation) when I believe that they are already active enough to do their job if the need arises and that the role of a SCer is largely different in terms of activity requirements to that of any other position.

Secondly, Siwale believes that taking a direct approach to searching for applications and contacting them after discussions with the SC (taking everybody's opinions on someone into account), but I believe that people should be educated about the Council and be offered the choice to apply of their own volition once they have learned enough about the informal standards and legalities. I do mention that the only situation where a direct approach needs to be taken is when there are shortages in active members.

Thirdly, Siwale believes that he needs to introduce legislation so that he can specify that a councilor can conduct a security check in the absence of the Vice Delegate and I believe that the law already takes this into account with Article 3, Clause 11 of the Constitution and Section 5.2, Clause 12 of the Legal Code.

Penultimately, Siwale wants to take an individual approach (but not individual really because it is going to be a joint thing with HA) to getting more in contact with the WA population by telegramming 1,400 people with information and hoping to get responses, but I believe all the knowledge the WA population needs can already be found in very high-quality dispatches and guides across the game.

Finally, I wanted to know why Siwale saw struggles in my term as Vice Delegate the last term since he made that statement and I simply wanted to know why he thought there were issues, yet he did not give me one specific case and only referred to his platform. You've done a much better job of shining light on the troubles of last term and I acknowledge them now that you have specifically referred to them.

I'm sure there are some instances I have missed so please mention them below and I will explain.
To put it bluntly, duh, the positions are different, though to be fair, I did not ask about your opinion of him as a potential Vice Delegate, I asked if you still believed he would make a good member of the SC. I would still like an answer to that question. If I understand you correctly, though, you are saying that you thought he had good character for a member of the SC, but that those traits do not apply to the Vice Delegate role. Frankly, this just creates more questions for me. What good qualities of his character exist that wouldn't also be good for a Vice Delegate? Do you believe the two roles require different qualities of person? What were he positive qualities you saw in Siwale when you championed his SC membership?
I do not still believe he should be a member of the SC, primarily because of what the other Councilors have said regarding him and because his last application was rejected and it is too soon for those opinions to have changed. I listened to the rest of the Council and I see why their points are valid. My opinions during the discussion took into account the fact that he was knowledgeable of endorsements and we had a worrying decline in SC activity at that point.

I don't think there is a lot I can take away from him regarding his ability to get the WADP posted and get the security checks done. I think I see it from your perspective slightly. Siwale was rejected by the Council, so I think for him to Chair them may be quite a strange dynamic whereas I have had four months with them already.

I do believe that the role of a SCer and the VD differ massively because only one of them is Chair of the SC itself.
I don't think you were wrong or naive to run, I was just asking if there were any assumptions or beliefs you had about the role back then that you learned were wrong once you were in the job. Put another way, I wanted to get a sense of what you thought the job was and what it entailed prior to taking office, because I believe all serious candidates for office go into their campaign knowing at least the basics and understanding on a fundamental level what it is they will be tasked with doing should they win. You sort of touched on this, but you mentioned the job not being one where a lot of things change.
There were no assumptions that I had made that did not apply to the position. There were many things I did not know about because it takes being the VD to know them in the first place, but I knew about the basic duties, definitely. I knew about my legal duty to take the Delegacy in case of a crisis and my obligation to keep a watchful eye. I knew what I would have to do if something like that happened. I had good estimations for what the position had in store and on most of them, I was correct.
Would you say you feel constrained by the role of Vice Delegate? Is there no area you feel can be improved or enhanced depending on who holds the office? If it's static, what difference does it make if you or Siwale, or heck, even Hong Kong wins?
I am constrained by the law and my own work ethic. Of course I think it can be enhanced based on who is as the VD, I wouldn't be running if I thought that the job could be done by just about everyone.
I said you had answers full of fluff, but honestly a lot of these were pretty snarky, like that one. When you suggested Siwale join the SC, you did so in part expecting he would not advance to the top of the line of succession? Why would you support an applicant you did not believe capable of possibly serving as Delegate, or serving with others who are in no small part former Delegates and Vice Delegates? That is elite company, so even if you didn't think LoS would be a big deal, wouldn't it still matter what kind of caliber the candidate has? Why would someone be worthy of serving on the SC but not up to the job of Vice Delegate?
Indeed. I never doubted Siwale's ability to serve as potential Delegate or Vice Delegate. I said that I couldn't see such a situation, where everyone in the LoS above him leaves or cannot take the Delegacy, happening. That's all.
 
If you do win the Vice Delegacy, what ideas will you consider (if any) of your opposition to improve the Security Council?
Processing security checks quickly and releasing timely publications of the WADP awards. Only the second really applies to myself because I had no issues with checks last term but there were some issues with the WADP awards which have all been sorted out now.
 
Do you believe you have enough knowledge of the NS world to be able to identify potential threats to The North Pacific if they were to apply for citizenship and attempt to pass the Vice Delegate's check?
 
Mystery Player:
Do you believe you have enough knowledge of the NS world to be able to identify potential threats to The North Pacific if they were to apply for citizenship and attempt to pass the Vice Delegate's check?
I do believe I have enough knowledge of the NS world identify potential threats, yes. There are standards of which all applicants must meet and I make my judgment based on those standards.
 
GreensteadNational:
Do you have experience to identify threats outside the region. This is important for Vice Delegates!
Some threats are better at staying hidden than others. But most threats? Most likely. All threats? Not likely. I must be honest with this because I am not going to say I am completely capable of knowing what to do in every single scenario. Things happen, and sometimes those things are beyond what any VD can handle.
 
Back
Top