Sniffles for Speaker and SC

Well you all know me and you all know what I'm about. I've been here for a long time, time enough to see our region go around like a yo-yo. I'm also very active, fellow cabinet members from the past two terms cannot deny that they've received at least one poke from me on a vote. All of which I feel makes me perfect for both the positions of Security Council member and Speaker.

As for my plans for being the Speaker, my past idioms stand. I feel Wiz has done a good job having held the position for something like five consecutive terms. Our first and only Speaker. Some may want to "streamline" and toy around with our system to expedite matters but I feel such tinkering is unnecessary. The system works and has worked perfectly before, the only problem seems to be attentiveness which our Assembly has lacked. In times of grave importance we've come together such as the referendums on ejecting security threats.

How we act under the worst of circumstances, I feel defines us as who we are. History has been on our side; for solidarity in times of struggle, in shining in the darkest of nights. We can't move forward without knowing who are and what made us who we are.

As for the delays in the War Provisions Act which has been brought up, do we need it? Of course. Should we rush it without a thorough examination? Absolutely not. Matters of such grave importance cannot be rushed especially when it requires the bending or twisting of the rights and freedoms we all know are precious and delicate.

(And yes, despite being out of office I'll continue to journey the treacherous road of Dummies for all legal documents. Having an AWOL deputy and a litany of lawsuits plus a graveyard shift new job hasn't helped.)

Questions, comments, stones? *crickets chirp in the background

Just a comment!!

No!!

What do you feel is your greatest contribution to the North Pacific so far?

dont pick it up:

What do you feel is your greatest contribution to the North Pacific so far?

Click to expand...

I honestly have to say that this is the hardest question I've ever been asked because, other than Flem or Thel, we've all just seemed like a grain of sand in this massive feeder. Other than being surrounded with thousands of nations, we've also graced some absolutely amazing players which probably number over a hundred. But I guess I would have to say that just participating and being active is our greatest contribution. One of the most beautiful things about our government is that no one voice commands our region, just look any number of bills in our RA; no proposal hasn't been enriched by our debate, by our commitment for a better region. The freeflow of thoughts coming together to a cohesive vision is what truly makes us the best in the NS world.

What is your feeling on a straight up/down vote for proposed discussions? Several proposals have gotten quite a bit of discussion yet due to the inertia of the office, they haven't made a vote or main discussion. What is your oppinion of the legislative style of the NPD (1 week discussion/modification, 1 week vote)?

Over the last few months, you have shown yourself to have very strong opinions on several topics, and almost a headstrong attitude regarding your goals. How do you forsee yourself reconciling this with the position of Speaker, specifically vis a vis bills that may not align with your beliefs.

Al Homa - the idea of straight up and down votes on whether to vote and other procedures to expedite bills is a tricky concept. It takes long enough to order and organize a vote itself, a vote to vote might just slow matters down even more. As for the inertia of the office, in my opinion, most people overlook that we need a strong confirmable language before we can even call a vote. Most people (myself included) throw a lot of ideas up in the air and expect it suddenly to be made into language then complain when the thread starts to lose momentum.

Also, another reason for the so-called inertia is because I've felt that Wiz moved along bills which offered much consensus. Even bills with the language in place seemed to get lost under the new proposals. I'm less forgiving, if I feel debate has died down no matter how raucous the naysayers, I will move forward to a vote. In my opinion, a resounding no to a bill is good for the region. It allows us to get past the issue and move on, or at the very least properly send the message to water it down to something more acceptable.

Byard - it was quite clear in my campaign thread that I am a man of much passion and intensity in beliefs, I feel its a strength. I confessed both election times that I would use the same intensity to pursue the good of the region in my respective ministry. In short, should I be elected that same intensity will be reflective in my duties.

As for potential conflicts, I pursued the powers of my ministry for the good of the region. Everything I did was lawful and every failure was rectified. You can also expect more in the future, as to whether this might cause conflicts of interest, I can promise to allay your fears. My job in the end comes first and my duty is to the region. In the Justice ministry, I had to do a lot of things I didn't want to do and was forced to put aside some beliefs to the will of the region. No matter how great or forceful my beliefs on certain matters may be, the North Pacific comes first. And I feel that has reflected my record.

mr_sniffles:

Al Homa - the idea of straight up and down votes on whether to vote and other procedures to expedite bills is a tricky concept. It takes long enough to order and organize a vote itself, a vote to vote might just slow matters down even more. As for the inertia of the office, in my opinion, most people overlook that we need a strong confirmable language before we can even call a vote. Most people (myself included) throw a lot of ideas up in the air and expect it suddenly to be made into language then complain when the thread starts to lose momentum.

Click to expand...

I guess my question was slightly confusing...

Do you support a system in which, when a bill's author calls for a vote, the measure gets placed up for vote? The point being to get what the author believes is enough of a concensus to get the measure passed before the call for a vote. Obviously giving the RA time to read the measure is to be expected, but somewhere in the range of 24 to 48 hours from the author asking for a vote the legislation appears on the primary voting.

If the authour wants an informal vote, then one can be provided through a poll like GM's structure change. However if in forty-eight hours, the vote is overwhelming (like over 20 members) then obviously I would move to an official vote but if in that time, we recieve only three then perhaps more debate would be needed.

Anything else?

In your position on the SC and/or as Speaker, do you plan to follow the Constitution/Laws closely? Do you plan to read them thoroughly before making definitive statements and decisions?

I have one question concerning the fact that you're running for both Speaker and a seat on the Security Council:

Constitution:

A - ... The Speaker shall serve as the presiding officer of the Council...
C - ... The Speaker shall not have a vote in Security Council matters except in the case of a tie, but the Speaker shall count to the establishment of a quorum for a particular matter.

Click to expand...

The Speaker also having a seat on the Security Council is not expressly against the rules, but it puts the matter up to interpretation: do you believe that you would act as both a SC member with a vote and as Speaker being able to break a tie? Or do you think it would make more sense to conclude that the role of Speaker already makes you a de facto SC member given part A above?

edit, grammar

Unter - Yes, if I was to be elected to both positions I would be able to vote twice if there is a tie. But personally I feel that is up to the voters to decide since their is nothing in the law which speaks on this issue. It's simply a matter of trust, do you trust me not to go powermad with two votes and rule the North Pacific with an iron grip.

FEC - in times of emergency, I state my opinion and recitation of the law offhand. There's been plenty of times I was right on the money and enough times for me to make a mistake. We all make mistakes and I've taken time to rectify them. I feel that when the voters elect me, it's up to me to use the best of my ability to do the duty I've been elected to. Sometimes it's got me in trouble, sometimes I actually got some good done. I obviously try to be right as much as I can and will promise to make more of an effort on more serious matters.

As to how I would follow the laws, of course I will abide to the same values and ideals of the Constitution as I have in the past. But to be honest, I can't think of a single candidate who will promise not to. Imagine that as a slogan!