Romanoffia for Vice Delegate

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
How does one go about explaining why one would want to be Vice Delegate? I suppose I could go into grandiose statements of political philosophy and policy, but that would be a largely meaningless endeavour that would dilute my reasons for running for the position. So where do I start?

When McM resigned the Delegacy, I was rather shocked, not so much about the resignation, but when I logged into my nation and immediately realised that something very strange had happened. I looked at my TGs and one said, "take a look at the RMB header". I looked and went, "oh, crap," when I saw my nation in the position of WA Delegate. Then I laughed when I realised that there were probably more than a few other people who saw that and went, "oh, crap." At any rate, I thought is was a little odd.

It was an interesting situation because I was 3rd in the line of succession via the SC, but I had more endorsements than Silly String who was Vice Delegate, which, of course meant that SS was Acting Delegate and I was Acting Vice Delegate. So, the immediate task at that point was to do what was requested of me by the Acting Delegate and work as quickly as possible to do my designated part to assure that the transition of power was accomplished as quick as possible and assume the role of Acting Vice Delegate. Fortunately, the whole process went off without a hitch (largely to the work done by Asta in coordinating the effort). The rest is history.

This rather intrigued me in terms of whether or not I would like to serve the region as an actual Vice Delegate. Being the type who is fascinated by any 'process' (and I view being in such an executive position as a 'process'), I thought to myself, Hell, I can do this job and do it well.

Is an interesting anecdote related to it all, previously, before ending up as a "Caretaker Delegate", I have voted one way on an WA vote, which translated to a Delegate's vote in that matter. Silly String, as Acting Delegate, requested I change my vote, which, as duty required of me, to do. Of course, some people took issue with the fact that I changed my vote as I was requested to do, so I explained to them that as and SC member, I was required to do as the Acting Delegate directed me to do. I explained to them that was the nature of the beast and to do otherwise was not an option for any number of reasons in my view.

And that's about it. All I can do is ask for your vote.
 
Realise is the spelling most commonly used outside of North America, in the rest of the English speaking world. It is also, dare I say it, the correct way.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Realise is the spelling most commonly used outside of North America, in the rest of the English speaking world. It is also, dare I say it, the correct way.

I love driving my fellow Americans off the rails by using British Orthography and spellings. Spellings that really drive Americans off their nut are words like: Manoeuvre, Archaeology, Centre, Colour,Advice/Advise, Gynaecology and, of course, Defence. :P

There is a long story behind why I use Brit spelling which involving Trinity College and "The Shop" (Sandhurst).
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Realise is the spelling most commonly used outside of North America, in the rest of the English speaking world. It is also, dare I say it, the correct way.
You realize I was only making fun of Roman's zealous defense of British spellings, right?
 
Yayness cheese man:
In Britain you spell it realise.
In America you spell it realize.
If only the standardised spelling act had passed, we would not have needed this debate.

Just sayin'
 
Roman, in many ways, you are the only serious candidate for Vice-Delegate in the election thus far (I love you DD, but I’m not really fond of cats :P ) So I have a few questions for you, Roman.

How often do you plan to usually evaluate RA applications?
What will the Vice-Delegacy look like under your leadership style and administration? Do you have any plans to edit the SC procedures?
In your own personal point of view, do you think it would be wise to admit SC applicants merely on the number of WA endorsements they have, or should their accomplishments in the region be taken into account?

Roman, I have a few other questions out of interest, and they really don’t have anything to do with the election, and I hope you don’t mind me asking them.
Have you ever served as a Delegate or Vice-Delegate before in TNP?
For how long have you been an SC member?

Thanks for your time, and I do apologize for the many questions.

~ Tomb
 
Roman, what's the one thing that differentiates or will differentiate you from the other candidates for VD?
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
Roman, in many ways, you are the only serious candidate for Vice-Delegate in the election thus far (I love you DD, but I’m not really fond of cats :P ) So I have a few questions for you, Roman.

How often do you plan to usually evaluate RA applications?
What will the Vice-Delegacy look like under your leadership style and administration? Do you have any plans to edit the SC procedures?
In your own personal point of view, do you think it would be wise to admit SC applicants merely on the number of WA endorsements they have, or should their accomplishments in the region be taken into account?

Roman, I have a few other questions out of interest, and they really don’t have anything to do with the election, and I hope you don’t mind me asking them.
Have you ever served as a Delegate or Vice-Delegate before in TNP?
For how long have you been an SC member?

Thanks for your time, and I do apologize for the many questions.

~ Tomb
Since I'm on the forum daily with rare exception, I plan to evaluate applications on a daily basis. The evaluations are simple to do on the VD's end of the process, so there isn't any real reason for any delay in the process.

I'm planning on being fairly laid-back in style, more visible on the RMB to be helpful with new arrivals in the region and to support and assist the Delegate wherever needed and keep the office running smoothly and efficiently.

I don't have any plans to edit SC procedures at this time. The arrangement we have seems to work extremely well as was seen when McM resigned. In fact, that aspect of the SC procedure went off like clockwork.

As a matter of personal opinion, I would like to see more than just the number of WA endorsements considered in evaluating applications to the SC. By that I mean I would like to see more consideration of merit/accomplishments/service to the region on the part of the applicants.

I served briefly as a 'Caretaker' Delegate for about one and a half days when McMasterdonia resigned, just long enough for the Silly String to take over as Acting Delegate, and then I assumed the position of Acting Vice Delegate until the special election was concluded and Tomb became Delegate.

If memory serves me correctly, I have been on the Security Council since July 2012.



Alta Italia:
Roman, what's the one thing that differentiates or will differentiate you from the other candidates for VD?

I have been exclusively in The North Pacific since day one, and I have served in just about every position in the government over the years (or at least the equivalent of those positions under the current Constitution). I think this gives me a fairly good grasp of how the whole ball of wax works as a whole.
 
flemingovia:
You are joking, right? How short do you think our memories are?

Kudos for persistence, though.

Oh, no. I am not going to fall into your trap.

As the old adage says, never argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and win every time.

Nice try, though.
 
flemingovia:
You are joking, right? How short do you think our memories are?
Kudos for persistence, though.
Lol.. bringing up the state religion debate again I see. Like I said then: 'let the baby have his bottle'. Or is it the JAL fiasco that has your knickers in a knot? Neither has bearing on the Vice Delegacy. Roman has been a mainstay on the SC, been a 'caretaker delegate' (the royalty cheque is in the mail right? ;) ), and a contributing member to TNP. Since I've been here Flem, I haven't seen any noteworthy actions on your part. (fine.. I've only been here for approx 1 and 1/2 years).
 
falapatorius:
Lol.. bringing up the state religion debate again I see. Like I said then: 'let the baby have his bottle'. Or is it the JAL fiasco that has your knickers in a knot?
Nope and nope.
 
Very well then, a serious question or two: are there any reforms you feel ought to be made to the way the security council has members admitted or the way it operates?

What safeguards do you feel ought to be in place to prevent the security council being infiltrated?
 
flemingovia:
Very well then, a serious question or two: are there any reforms you feel ought to be made to the way the security council has members admitted or the way it operates?

What safeguards do you feel ought to be in place to prevent the security council being infiltrated?
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to expand upon a brief related answer to a very similar question asked earlier in the thread by Alta Italia.

The short answer is:

As a matter of personal opinion, I would like to see more than just the number of WA endorsements considered in evaluating applications to the SC. By that I mean I would like to see more consideration of merit/accomplishments/service to the region on the part of the applicants.

To be honest with you, I do have some ideas as to certain reforms I would like to see explored. Specifically, as to how members are admitted to the SC, I would like to see applicants have more of a documented history within The North Pacific and some kind of government service as a requirement. By that I mean a proven track record of being loyal to TNP in terms of the dedication to their duty as it pertains to the Security Council and the region in general.

As for how the SC operates, so far, in the one actual semi-emergency we had (McM's resignation), I think the mechanical aspects of how the SC worked in that instance, as I said earlier in the thread, went off without a hitch. It did so because the SC members as a whole pay attention to what is going on on a daily basis. One thing that could be improved upon is a quicker means of notifying SC members of issues requiring absolute immediate attention. Perhaps an alternative emergency communications/messaging system. Easy enough to do because we can send emails directly to SC members if needed.

The next improvement I would like to explore is a specific line of communication between our intelligence gathering assets (wonk term) and the SC. That is, have someone, preferably outside the SC, prepare periodic briefings as to the SC on any issues foreign or domestic that may be helpful to the SC so that specific strategies could be developed quickly to handle any problems that might arise. A lot of this goes on already in a semi-official to official way, but a more refined protocol should be developed (one that preferably is not unnecessarily complex or time consuming).

Pertaining to safeguards to prevent infiltration of the SC - that is a more complex matter that needs to be set down in a specific protocol in screening and, however distasteful it might seem, keeping track of SC members' activities and applicants activities arising from inter-regional participation of SC members. This also apply to applicants to the SC. That is, pardon the over used term, a no brainer. While this tends to happen as a matter of course, and we have had no inter-regional issues, but a problem in this area might occur in the future. Better safe than sorry in that respect.

The best method of preventing infiltration is a more stringent screening of applicants. This should involve some kind of detailed 'application' consisting of a number of questions given to the applicant, the answers to which can be verified as accurate or inaccurate and which can give us an indication of any duplicity on the part of applicants.

Any modifications or reforms we explore the possibility of initiating should be based upon an informed mindset and not a paranoid mindset. One of the whole ideas behind the Security Council is to have a mechanical system to provide for continuity of legal governance to the level that we don't have to be paranoid when something happens or could happen. Any changes we contemplate have to not upset that particular state of non-paranoia, and carefully mindful of any and all possible unintended consequences.

As a general policy, any new or creative ideas should be explored as they come along, especially if those ideas can simplify procedures rather than make them more complex.
 
Back
Top