SillyString:
If you could draft any TNPer, living or dead, to be your deputy speaker, who would you pick?
If I could draft any TNPer, past or present to be deputy speaker, I'd probably draft
JAL Nierr (esentially JAL's puppet anyway /s) because of his surprising godlike capabilities in sorting out details when he was working with me in the Culture Ministry and during the previous Justice Election. Controversial figure maybe, but the role of Deputy Speaker has been held by enough silly people that it really doesn't matter. Heck, this is the Speaker's Office we're talking about, if there's one place that doesn't attract controversy in TNP, it has to be here.
As Speaker, would you make any changes to the standing procedures, or urge the RA to pass any changes to the RA rules?
As to whether I'd make any changes to standing procedures or urge the RA to make changes to the RA rules, I think standing procedures work as is right now. I remember there was some discussion a few months back on quorum and abstaining from votes and the like, but I think it's better to let the RA decide what is best for itself (especially since changing that requires a constitutional amendment, see Article 2 of the Constitution), although my personal opinion is that the current voting system doesn't have to be more unnecessarily complex for the sake of complexity.
I might consider adding an amendment mandating the Speaker to inform inactive nations, meeting a certain threshold before the one that the Speaker has to remove them from the RA (as defined in the Legal Code, Clause 6.1.14) that they are at risk of losing their RA membership, but that's about that.
What is the single worst clause on the books in TNP, in your opinion? Feel free to draw from any part of the Constibillocode.
The last question is a tough one. I could talk about the divisiveness of Section 7.3 of the Legal Code, but that has been talked to death about for the last few months anyway. I think that a 'single worst clause' has to be either one that is way too long for its own sake (something that I'm genuinely surprised I have yet to encounter) or something very ill-defined. I can't say that I've made up my mind about it, 100%, but I think that the Sanity Clause in the Security Council Law (Clause 5.5.28 of the Legal Code) allows for way too many theoretical situations. Just how do we define 'reasonable'? Maybe a re-look is in order? That's my pick for worst clause, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough.