Cormac Stark for Speaker

[Cormac]

Cormac Stark for Speaker​

Hello all. As you can see, I'm running for Speaker of the Regional Assembly. I've never been one for very long campaign manifestos so I'll keep this as brief as possible, highlighting my prior legislative experience and a couple of the issues that I think will be key in this election.

Experience: I have pretty much continuously served in regional legislative bodies since I started playing NationStates in February. I have been the lead author of three regional constitutions and have participated in the authorship of two others. I have been actively involved in The North Pacific's Regional Assembly since my arrival here in May and so I am very familiar with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Legal Code and RA Procedure. I believe my prior experience in other regions and my experience here in the Regional Assembly would be beneficial both to the quality of our legislation as well as the way the Speaker's powers and responsibilities are executed.

Aside from my prior experience, I would like to address two key issues that I think will be on the minds of voters when electing a new Speaker:

Neutrality of the Speaker: I think the traditional political neutrality of the Speaker is an issue that is very important to many North Pacificans. If elected, I would continue the long tradition of the Speaker's voting abstention to ensure that the office of the Speaker isn't used to provide political benefit to any party, interest group or individual. I would limit my input on proposed legislation to suggested changes that would improve the quality of legislation rather than offering input on the political merits of legislation.

Power of the Speaker: While I believe that the Speaker has not only the power but the responsibility to maintain order in the Regional Assembly, I also believe that the need for order must be balanced with respect for the rights of North Pacificans. If elected, I would of course comply with whatever decision is made by the Court of The North Pacific in regard to the Speaker's power. Beyond that and depending upon the decision rendered by the Court, I would continue to restrict commentary in voting threads but would relax restrictions placed upon font color, size, etc., that were imposed by the former Speaker.

So, that's my campaign manifesto. I'm happy to answer any questions that voters may have. Thank you for your consideration!

 

[Welsh Cowboy]

How would you determine what was improving the quality of legislation rather than the political merits?

 

[Cormac]

How would you determine what was improving the quality of legislation rather than the political merits?

Aside from basic things like spelling or grammatical errors that could be fixed, I would be looking for parts of legislation that might have unintended consequences. Examples would be overly vague clauses that would cause over-litigation, clauses that seek to do one thing but also do something else that may not be intended, etc. In other words, I would be looking at the structure of the legislation itself and ways to improve it rather than the political reasoning behind the legislation.

 

[Welsh Cowboy]

How would you determine what was improving the quality of legislation rather than the political merits?

Aside from basic things like spelling or grammatical errors that could be fixed, I would be looking for parts of legislation that might have unintended consequences. Examples would be overly vague clauses that would cause over-litigation, clauses that seek to do one thing but also do something else that may not be intended, etc. In other words, I would be looking at the structure of the legislation itself and ways to improve it rather than the political reasoning behind the legislation.

Alright, thanks.

Good luck!

 

[punk d]

Cormac,

I do not believe you have the ability to be impartial and instead resort to personal attacks when responding to people you disagree with. How can you prove this notion wrong?

 

[Cormac]

Cormac,

I do not believe you have the ability to be impartial and instead resort to personal attacks when responding to people you disagree with. How can you prove this notion wrong?

Essentially, I don't believe I do that anymore than anyone else does -- and usually in response to relatively similar attacks against me or someone else. So I'm not going to try to prove the notion wrong. There really is no way to prove an assertion like that wrong except by citing the many examples of me not resorting to personal attacks when responding to people I disagree with, which will only be countered with examples (that I don't deny) of me engaging in personal attacks.

I have already pledged to be politically neutral if elected Speaker, which is a pledge of impartiality. I stand by that pledge and I hope voters will trust that I mean it honestly. But anyone who has a strongly contrary view of me is unlikely to vote for me in any case so I'm not going to waste my time dispelling this notion; people are free to vote for anyone they'd like, and anyone who truly believes I can't be impartial and will personally attack anyone I disagree with should vote for someone else.

 

[Joshua]

You have only played since February? What other regions are you and have you been in? What regions did you draft constitutions in?

So personal attacks are okay as long as you do not do it first?

 

[Mahaj]

The previous speaker operated under a policy of "what the speaker says, goes".

Do you believe in this policy as well?

 

[Cormac]

You have only played since February? What other regions are you and have you been in? What regions did you draft constitutions in?

So personal attacks are okay as long as you do not do it first?

I don't see how the length of time I've been playing the game is really relevant. I've been active in The North Pacific for six months and playing the game for nine months. Our Delegate has only been playing the game for ten months, by comparison, and the former Speaker has been playing the game for even less time than I have if I recall correctly.

To answer your second question, I have over the past nine months been active -- to varying degrees -- in a number of regions and organizations. The primary ones were probably Exshaw, Asgard/Asgardia, Europeia, The New Inquisition, Osiris, The United Defenders League and of course The North Pacific. There have been others but my involvement in them was fairly limited by comparison to the ones I've listed. I drafted constitutions in Exshaw, Asgard and Asgardia.

In response to your last question, I didn't say personal attacks were ok. I said I'm not the only person who engages in them but yes, for the record, I do think it's acceptable to respond in kind when one or one's friends have been attacked. That said, I also said that I pledge to be politically neutral and impartial as Speaker and I intend to stand by that pledge; whether voters believe that will be up to them.

The previous speaker operated under a policy of "what the speaker says, goes".

Do you believe in this policy as well?

Without conceding that the former Speaker operated under that policy, no, I do not believe in such a policy. I do insist that in the absence of rules the Speaker can determine rules at his or her discretion, which is consistent with Article 2.6 of the Constitution. I would retain the rule that only votes may be cast in voting threads, a power recently upheld by the Court (here). However, I think that the Speaker should be reasonable in making rules and while I think Kingborough had good intentions I think some of his rules were a bit excessive -- so as I said in my platform, I will relax rules that restrict font size, color, etc. in voting threads.

 

[Joshua]

Why do you want to be speaker? What makes you a better choice then the other candidates?

 

[Gaspo]

Your response to punk d's question appears to amount to "I only do that when someone else starts it." That doesn't make it okay. The Speaker is expected to tolerate, and rise above, a staggering amount of crap that gets thrown from all sides in the RA's intense debates. What I think punk d was asking, really, was for you to explain how you'll be able to completely change your behavior, as would be required for you to perform adequately as Speaker. Your answer appears to be "I promised I will." Please correct me if my analysis is incorrect.

 

[Joshua]

Amen Gaspo. That is exactly what I was trying to get at.

 

[Cormac]

Why do you want to be speaker? What makes you a better choice then the other candidates?

I want to be Speaker because I believe that my prior legislative experience would be beneficial to the Regional Assembly and because I'd like to have a positive impact on the quality of our legislation. In regard to other candidates, I will allow them to speak for themselves and voters to decide who is the better candidate.

Your response to punk d's question appears to amount to "I only do that when someone else starts it." That doesn't make it okay. The Speaker is expected to tolerate, and rise above, a staggering amount of crap that gets thrown from all sides in the RA's intense debates. What I think punk d was asking, really, was for you to explain how you'll be able to completely change your behavior, as would be required for you to perform adequately as Speaker. Your answer appears to be "I promised I will." Please correct me if my analysis is incorrect.

To begin with, most -- though I will concede not all -- of the personal attacks that I have admitted I've engaged in have been in our IRC channel, not on the Regional Assembly forums. In the Regional Assembly, I already have a record of working toward compromise on bitterly divisive issues. I worked with Mcmasterdonia and Eluvatar to achieve a compromise on the WA Voting Policy issue, a topic over which I strongly disagreed with them, in a civil and cooperative manner. I have since defended both that compromise and Mcmasterdonia and Eluvatar against opponents, again in a civil and cooperative manner.

I will also point out that I am currently handling what I think we can all agree is a certain degree of antagonism in my campaign thread in a civil manner.

I am passionate about many issues and I do at times take things too personally and respond too personally. I'm not denying that. However, I have always tried to put personal differences aside and work with others in the Regional Assembly and I think my record demonstrates that at least to some degree. The Speaker has an even greater responsibility to do that, I recognize that responsibility and if elected I will take it very seriously. I'm not sure what else I can say on the matter.

 

[Gaspo]

I don't think there's any antagonism here. People are asking you questions, and scrutinizing your platform. That's part of the deal when you stand for elections. If we were calling you a stupid-head poopy-face (which noone is), then yes, you might have a basis to claim antagonism, but I genuinely don't see that happening here.

As to IRC being somehow different from here, I'd argue that given that the laws of TNP apply in that location, your behavior there is just as important as your behavior here. Your argument would be akin to a US Congressman saying "Yes, well, I routinely engage in fistfights and behave quite poorly, but I do that in bars, not actually on the floor of Congress. On the floor of Congress, I'm very nice and a completely different person. Don't pay attention to the rest of my behavior." I, for one, choose to look at candidates based on the sum of their actions, rather than purely based on those actions and behaviors which they would prefer I consider.

As to your cooperation with others within the RA on the one sole matter you cited, I would appreciate it if you would provide links to any available record of such actions. I'm glad to look for positive behavior where it exists, but I prefer to see proof rather than take the word of any politician during an election cycle.

 

[Cormac]

As to IRC being somehow different from here, I'd argue that given that the laws of TNP apply in that location, your behavior there is just as important as your behavior here. Your argument would be akin to a US Congressman saying "Yes, well, I routinely engage in fistfights and behave quite poorly, but I do that in bars, not actually on the floor of Congress. On the floor of Congress, I'm very nice and a completely different person. Don't pay attention to the rest of my behavior." I, for one, choose to look at candidates based on the sum of their actions, rather than purely based on those actions and behaviors which they would prefer I consider.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the laws of TNP apply in the IRC channel. The rest of your point about the totality of my behavior however is valid and I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to persuade, so far, three individuals that I can be politically neutral when you are so obviously convinced otherwise. I'm happy to answer other questions but I'm not sure what additional answers I can give to this question that would satisfy you. As I said previously, if you truly believe that I'm incapable of political neutrality and impartiality there's probably very little I can do to change your opinion.

As to your cooperation with others within the RA on the one sole matter you cited, I would appreciate it if you would provide links to any available record of such actions. I'm glad to look for positive behavior where it exists, but I prefer to see proof rather than take the word of any politician during an election cycle.

Most of those compromise negotiations took place over IRC, but you can see this post in which I noted that I had participated in negotiating that compromise and defended Mcmasterdonia against one of the opponents of the compromise. Aside from that, I'm really not sure there are other links for me to provide and if there are I have no idea where to look for them.

 

[Gaspo]

As much as I appreciate your efforts to tell me what I think, you couldn't be further from the truth. My questions are aimed at discovering information which is required in order for me to determine what I think. The only person who's actually stated an opinion about you, is punk d.

As to the point of law, I may be wrong - if I am, so be it. Given that evidence from that channel is routinely used in TNP legal proceedings, however, my overall point still stands. The behavior to be examined in evaluating an individual is not confined to purely that behavior which is displayed in one contained area; it is a the sum of an individual's actions that make them who they are. One might argue that an attempt to steer focus away from a candidate's behavior in what is arguably this region's most active public discussion space, would in fact draw extra attention to one's behavior in that space, but that is not for me to say.

As to the example of compromise which you presented, that one sole example is illuminating, and I appreciate your efforts to address my concerns. I must now think on whether an individual who's played NS for 8 months, can only cite one example of him reaching compromise (and there only the conclusion), and wishes to draw attention away from his activity on IRC in favor of focusing on a narrow subset of the available record, is best qualified to serve as Speaker of the Regional Assembly for one of this game's greatest regions. Thank you for your answers - I'll be sure to ask if any more questions come up.

 

[punk d]

Cormac, my question was intentionally pointed because I wanted to see how you'd respond. You didn't respond as poorly as I thought, and for that I'm glad.

However, I am not convinced that you have the ability to be impartial. When I first met you I had an entirely different impression, but having seen you suffer real and imagined sleights, I feel that you generally do not have impartiality.

If you win this election, you could prove me wrong, but if impartiality is a good trait within a Speaker and I believe it is...I think a good person for the job is someone who can exhibit that. It doesn't mean they don't have opinions, but it means they can set them aside to do the administration of this role in order to not show bias.

I haven't seen that from you Cormac. Doesn't mean it's not there, just means I haven't seen it. As such, I'm afraid I cannot support your campaign but do hope that if you win, you prove me wrong.