Tim
TNPer
Tim/COE: Debate Log
Cormac Stark: First question comes from Almanianian_Union: Do you feel there could be improvements to the system of RA acceptances? If so, how?
Crushing Our Enemies: Well, there is certainly a fine line to be walked between expediency and regional security. So long as administrators stay on top of the security checks, I don't see a problem with the current system of acceptance. As Speaker, I would check that thread every day and add those who have passed security checks. On a point of policy, I don't consider the WA requirement to be strictly necessary, but that is for the RA as a whole to decide.
Tim Stark: I think that the RA acceptance system needs to go significantly faster than it does. We're at the point where the 1-month Auto Acceptance is actually having to be used. In most regions, it takes at most a day or two to get Citizenship. Having people wait a Month for masking into what is basically the Equivalent of Citizenship, in TNP, seems silly. Personally, as Speaker, I would be checking the thread multiple times a day for applications to go through. Although I would not be able to do anything regarding the Administrators, I would like to see their IP checks happening must faster than they are right now.
Crushing Our Enemies: On a point of fact, the auto-acceptance is triggered after two weeks.
Tim Stark: Ah, I had heard one month and haven't exactly been having enough sleep lately. My apologies. Two weeks. Still too long, though, to wait for what is basically Citizenship
Crushing Our Enemies: When I applied to join the RA, my security check was completed within minutes. Perhaps I got lucky, or maybe I joined at an opportune time, but it seems like backlog has been caught up, and will likely stay caught up in the future. Regardless, Tim is correct that there's not much either of us could do regarding security checks.
Tim nods
Cormac Stark: From Koth: How do you feel about the tracking of WA nations in TNP, and if you have any problems with the system how would you go about changing it?
Tim Stark: I, personally, am not the biggest fan of the WA Tracking. Many members of TNP are involved with either Raiding or Defending and often have the need to keep an undisclosed World Assembly nation for days/weeks on end. Although the "Record Keeper" would, in theory, solve this; Most people in this game have some sort of allegiance to one side or another so I doubt it would be easy to find an unbiased Keeper. I would probably support an elimination of the system and the implementation of a much less intrusive system for tracking WAs.
Crushing Our Enemies: I also do not like WA Tracking. We already have plenty of measures in place to prevent double voting, and our security is pretty much top-notch. I have personally spoken to members of the RA who are unlikely to vote in the general election because it would mean disclosing their current WA nation, even if only to the ECs. That's a problem which needs to change. As speaker, I would nominate a Registrar of Confidential Puppets pursuant to Legal Code 6.2, which I think would be a step in the right direction. I support the elimination of WA tracking, but naturally, as Speaker, my role would not be to formulate policy, but simply to process the policy formed by the RA as a whole. If enough RA members wish to remove that requirement, they will find a vote to be opened in a timely manner, and closed promptly at the end of the voting period. What happens beyond that is up to them.
Tim Stark: COE, how would you plan to find a Registrar of Confidential Puppets that can be trusted fully to keep them secret. There are not many people in TNP without allegiance to one side or another. Even a neutral could sell out a sleeper with enough persuasion.
Crushing Our Enemies: It's a multi-step process, so bear with me.
1. I would select a slate of candidates who are not involved in any military operations, and who have a long tenure in TNP, and a good reputation as TNP patriots. I won't mention any names at this time.
2. I would post the short list in a thread in the meeting chambers of the RA, and solicit votes. Each RA member could cast a ballot publicly or privately containing as many or as few of the names as they like. They could vote for everyone, or no one, or any number in between
3. All candidates who appeared on fewer than 3/4 of the ballot would be removed from consideration, and I would select a name from those remaining.
Jamie: Okay. My question: What would be your main goal if elected as speaker? Anything specific you'd want to do? Like, passing particular legislation and/or changing RA procedure etc.
Crushing Our Enemies: I think we really need to establish an RA procedure for making changes to the Legal Code. Currently, the RA is empowered by the Constitution to make law, and the Delegate is empowered to veto laws within one week. However, there is nothing said in any legal document about when during that process the Legal is to be changed. Now, common sense dictates that a Speaker wait one week for the Delegate to veto or not, and then make the change. However, legally speaking, unless there is an implementation clause in the bill, he is not required to do that. That’s a loophole that needs to be closed.
Tim Stark: I definitely agree with COE on the matter of the RA Procedure for Changes to the Legal Code. That's a loophole that need to be closed, as it could lead to a lot of potential abuse from any RA Speaker that doesn't like a certain law. Aside from that, I'd like to see the RA stay organized and continue to be speedy and organized.
Cormac Stark: All right. Next question is from Kingborough: Are there any improvements or changes you wish to make to the way the job of the Speaker is undertaken and if so what?
Tim Stark: I wouldn't mind the Speaker being able to have an AutoTool for masking RA members after the Security Check, because (if I am not mistaken) I have seen members be Clean Security Checked and then not remasked. Other than that, I think that the current state of how the job of Speaker is done is alright.
Crushing Our Enemies: Honestly, I like the job the way it is. The Speaker is the impartial agent of the Regional Assembly, carrying out their will, and turning their vision into reality. At times, he must control debate, and enforce decorum, as a personification of order and even-handedness. It’s a neat thing, and that’s why I’m running. That being said, the Autotool is a neat idea.
Cormac Stark: All right, Gaspo has a follow-up question in regard to the Legal Code loophole: Why do you need to be Speaker to implement changes to correct that loophole when any RA member can propose legislation to do that?
Crushing Our Enemies: Well, obviously you don't. The question was asking if I had any ideas to change the RA procedure, and that was my answer.
Tim Stark: I think COE said it best.
Cormac Stark: Next question comes from Koth: How would you respond if someone voted obnoxiously on an RA thread (e.g. with colored/huge text or exclamation points etc.)
Tim Stark: I believe that the RA has a decorum that needs to be observed, and this would be one without garish text. I think one exclamation point is alright, but excessive punctuation, garish colors, or unnecessary sizes are not acceptable. I would spoiler the person's vote, to prevent it from distracting people, and would consider the Vote Discounted. I would then Contact the voter in question and inform them that their vote was disqualified. I would then Contact the voter in question and inform them that their vote was disqualified and that they would need to re-vote and follow Proper Voting Decorum.
Crushing Our Enemies: This is an important issue, and as such, an entire plank of my platform is devoted to it. I would promptly spoiler the vote, and PM the member that until or unless he edits it, his vote will not be counted. Decorum is important, because garish posts catch the eye, and might influence the vote of a member who would otherwise have abstained. If he’s casually scrolling down to the quick reply box, and sees a large red AYE from his best friend in the RA, he’s more likely to vote AYE. In short, voting threads are for voting, no other purpose. As Speaker, I would have to assume that any embellishments or additions to an official vote to be an attempt to influence the votes of other members.
Cormac Stark: Next question comes from Gaspo: In follow up to the last question, he wants to know if there is any evidence to support the claim that embellishments can influence a voter and if voter influence is a concern why not just switch to private voting?
Crushing Our Enemies: There have been no studies to confirm that garish votes can influence another voter, but it stands to reason. Everyone knows that we tend to share the opinions of those we respect, and if we know nothing about an issue, we tend to trust people we agree with most of the time. Thus, if someone hadn't read the debate on a bill, and intended to abstain, a post from a friend might change their mind, if they notice it, particularly if it's garish.
The only reason to vote in that manner is to express how enthusiastic one is to vote that particular way - which can certainly be interpreted as an attempt to influence. As for voting privately, many members prefer their votes to be public. I'm one of them. I want people to know how I vote, which I why I keep a record in my sig. I don't think the office of Speaker should be used to prevent people from doing that.
Tim Stark: I agree with COE on the matter, and would like to note that our eyes are attracted to bright colors. It's that attraction that, for example, causes babies to like big colorful objects. The same mentality applies here, so if a vote were to appear in.. say.. Size 48 Font and Bright Red, your eyes would be attracted to that and it might influence your vote. No proof that it would actually influence your vote, but you would actually see that vote and remember it more than say a Size 12 Normal Vote. I find that memories tend to influence how you work, especially subconsciously.
Crushing Our Enemies: I support what Tim said, although I don't agree with his comparison of the RA to babies
Kidding.Tim Stark: Less of a comparison and more of an analysis of Humans
Jamie Anumia: Next question, from Almanianian_Union: Other than the side of Gameplay you are on, what would you say is the biggest difference between yourself and your opponent?
Tim Stark: Although I can't say I've had the pleasure of knowing COE that much, I can't analyze this too far... I'd say that the biggest difference is that COE has been playing NS for quite a bit longer than I have and that he is more retired from Gameplay. On the flip side, I think I've been in more regions and have a wider range of NS experience, but I can't be sure on that since for all I know; COE has been in a lot of other places
Crushing Our Enemies: Well, I’d say the most significant difference is our tenure in TNP. I’ve been in this region for about a month, but already I’ve learned and absorbed enough to go toe-to-toe in a substantial debate on the issues with someone who has been here far longer than me. If experience were an indicator of competence, Tim would be wiping the floor with me in this debate. Now, maybe he’s just going easy on me, but I think it’s more likely that experience is not an indicator of competence
Tim Stark: COE, you are very competent. Stop undersizing yourself.
Tim Stark: Experienced/Competent
Crushing Our Enemies: I meant experience purely in the context of TNP politics, not NS as a whole
Tim Stark: Ah.
Cormac Stark: All right, next question comes from Asta in follow up to RA voting: Do you think RA members should have the right, or at least the option, to vote privately given that they currently do not?
Crushing Our Enemies: Hmm. Good question. In most RL democracies, members of the legislature are required to vote publicly, because they are accountable to the public that elected them, and their constituents have a right to know what decisions their elected representative has made. However, in TNP, we are not a representative democracy; we are a direct democracy. As such, each member of the RA is accountable to no one for his actions except himself and the Constitution. As such, I don’t have any specific objection to allowing private votes in the RA, if the assembly should see fit to modify the procedure as such.
Tim Stark: I think that RA members could definitely have the right to vote Privately, if they wish, and should propose it as an RA bill; if that is the opinion of the RA. I think it could make voting easier on the some of the more controversial votes that come up. However, I do like our current Public Voting system and believe that it is a very good system of keeping people accountable for their vote. As COE said, most Legislators IRL vote publicly. So I think I prefer the public voting, but have no objection to the RA being able to vote Privately on votes that come up.
Cormac Stark: All right, next question is from Kingborough: Will you be continuing the record keeping established during Kingborough's term as Speaker?
Tim Stark: Yes, I like the record keeping, that was established, and I praise Kingborough for establishing it. I definitely plan on continuing it.
Crushing Our Enemies: Yes. That's all
Cormac Stark: Ok. Asta asks: What is the best flavor of ice cream?
Crushing Our Enemies: It depends on what you're eating. You have to pair the ice cream flavor to the entree. Much like a choice of wine, the correct ice cream flavor can top of a dish like nothing else. Chocolate ice cream after a hot dog, for example. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the wrong ice cream flavor can ruin your night. Key Lime ice cream after spaghetti, yuck!
Tim Stark: Firstly, I've got applaud COE for that answer
Secondly, Asta <3 Love the question. And I guess thirdly, erm... If Mango Sorbet counts then that. If not, then I'm partial to coffee ice creams with chocolate in them *nods* Coffee + Chocolate + Creamy Icey Version of it = <3Crushing Our Enemies: If Tim thinks Mango Sorbet would go well with every dish under the sun, then I have to say I don’t have much respect for him as a connoisseur.
Tim Stark: Well, personally, I was running under the assumption of Ice Cream as a Standalone.
Crushing Our Enemies: Ah, well that's a different story. In that case, it depends on the weather. NEXT QUESTION! Haha.
Tim Stark: NEXT
Cormac Stark: Kingborough has another more serious question: Do you have the experience with Google Documents required to update the RA rolls?
Tim Stark: How to put this... I don't use Microsoft Office. I use Google Docs for all. You could say I have the experience xP
Crushing Our Enemies: First off, it’s Google Drive now, not Google Docs anymore. And yes, without question, I do. No way to prove such claims except to do it, I guess.
Cormac Stark: Madjack asks: Yes, or no?
Crushing Our Enemies: YES!
Tim Stark: Madjack, it depends on if your pants are on or not.
Madjack: COE is correct.
Crushing Our Enemies: YES!
Cormac Stark: Ok next awesome srs question is from Almanianian_Union, who asks: What's your spirit animal?
Tim Stark: Wolf. Or a Direwolf, if we want to be even cooler.
Crushing Our Enemies: Buffalo. . .or, you know, Direbuffalo, of course.
Cormac Stark: Scandigrad asks: Will you name your first born child after me?
Crushing Our Enemies: Only if it's a boy.
Tim Stark: Hell yeah man.
Cormac Stark: Follow up from Asta: If you fail to carry through on your naming promise, how can we find you to punish you?
Tim Stark: I'm sure at least 1-2 NSers will have my Adress. Hell, I think at least 2 have it right now.
Crushing Our Enemies: I've already carried through. I AM SCANDIGRAD'S FATHER
Cormac Stark: Ok Kingborough asks: in the spirit of Oh My Goodness Gracious "do you believe we should all vote for Crushing Our Enemies because his name is more interesting and "Tim" is boring?
Crushing Our Enemies: RA members are free to base their vote on any criteria they like.
Tim Stark: In a serious fashion: RA members can vote how they want.
In lulzy answer: Crushing is so crude. This is why a boring name goes farther. They don't expect you until you turn into STABBING OUR ENEMIES! Because Crushing is boring. Also, a shoutout to OMGG. I will find you. And I will stab you O_O
Cormac Stark: Biyah asks: COE and Tim are opposite ends of the ideological spectrum - would the two of them be willing to abandon democracy, and simply have a fight-to-the-death to see who wins the seat?
COE wipes sweat from brow
Tim strings an arrow, looks at COE, and in true Legolas fashion says:
Tim Stark: "You would die before your stroke fell"
Crushing Our Enemies: I'll admit, I'm a bit surprised by his answer. It takes balls to challenge a man named Crushing Our Enemies.
COE's anvil falls on Tim
Tim Stark: It takes balls to challenge a Timelord.
Tim simply regenerates and then fires the arrow.
Cormac Stark: Follow up question: Biyah wants to know, knives or bats? And Madjack wants to know, would you fight to the death naked?
Crushing Our Enemies: 1. Neither. 2. It's the only way to fight to the death
Tim Stark: If I had to pick one of the two, I would go with knives. Bats are so blunt and boring. As for Madjack's question. I assume that Lord Madjack prefers naked and thus it would be naked.
Cormac Stark: King does wants to know which of you would taste better roasted for TNP Christmas dinner and Madjack wants to know what you're wearing, however.
Tim Stark: COE is a Hawk, so he'd probably taste better than an almost underweight human.
Crushing Our Enemies: I agree with Tim. I taste f***ing delicious.
Tim Stark: Madjack, dark blue jeans and a black vneck. With an FSM necklace and a watch for accessories.
Crushing Our Enemies: Blue jeans, socks, plaid boxers, and a Pink Floyd t-shirt.
Cormac Stark: All right that concludes our debate.
