COE for Speaker!

[Crushing Our Enemies]

For Speaker

Creativity. Organization. Experience.​

Fellow citizens and Regional Assembly members, it is my great pleasure to announce my candidacy for Speaker of the Regional Assembly! There has never been a more exciting time for the RA - the regional population is high, and barriers to entry are low, which means that we have a large, vibrant, and engaged legislature that befits our great democracy. It would be my honor and privilege to serve you once more as your Speaker. I have been elected to this office three times before, all in 2013. If you wish, you may view my previous campaign threads from January 2013, May 2013, and September 2013.

Experience​

My eyes are on the future of TNP, but please indulge me as I highlight some of my previous accomplishments as speaker:

1. The citizenship rolls
The Regional Assembly Rolls (as they were called then) were already in place when I became speaker, but I provided several enhancements to them during my tenure in office, and have continued to provide support to later speakers, and training in its use. Some of the features I have added include a sheet for counting votes quickly and with less chance for error than a hand count, columns assisting speakers with identifying those who need to be removed, including a column showing each members last activity date, and a complete voting history for each member dating back to July 2013 (when that feature was added). Those additions have changed the rolls from a simple list of members and their forum profiles and nations to a dynamic tool that have become immeasurably useful to the speaker in executing their duties on a daily basis.

2. The Weekly Digest
During my tenure as speaker, I began publishing a weekly publication that informed members of the regional assembly of recent and current business before the legislature, as well as other important regional news. It was published consistently every week on the forum and by telegram, and was an important tool for keeping the legislature informed. To my knowledge, I was the first speaker in TNP history to distribute such a publication.

3. Trained deputies
Prior to my time as speaker, there was usually only one deputy speaker, and their role was limited to stepping in for the speaker when they were absent. They were rarely given any other duties, and indeed, many speakers did not even appoint one. As speaker, I re-envisioned the role of deputies to be more like assistant speakers, in training for eventually becoming speaker themselves, if they were interested. By the end of my time in office, I had trained two deputies who were both fully prepared to be outstanding speakers. One was Zyvetskistaahn, who went on to have two successful terms, and the other was SillyString, who decided not to become speaker. However, SillyString has continued to provide advice and support to subsequent speakers.

4. Legislative procedures
I was the first speaker to establish separate procedures for legislative bills (such as amendments to our laws) and non-legislative bills (such as recall motions or NPA overrides.) Before I created these procedures, if you proposed a bill, it could then be changed by someone else and sent to vote without your say-so. I saw this as a problem, and established procedures that kept legislative bills under the control of their authors, and went to vote on their own terms.

5. #speakers_office
As speaker, I created an IRC channel called #speakers_office, for the speaker to conference with their deputies and for members of the public to ask questions in. While it has never much been used by the public, it has remained in continuous use by current and former members of the speaker's office for almost two years now. I am in that channel any time that I am on IRC, and I have made myself available to all speakers since my term ended for advice, support, and help with the rolls. Indeed, Bootsie and RPI have both sought my advice in that channel on several occasions this past term, and I have done my best to help them succeed.

Goals​

While I hope that these highlights of my previous tenure as speaker have convinced you of my credibility, they are not a platform. Here are my goals for this term:

1. Prompt completion of daily tasks
There are some things that just have to be done every day. These include adding new citizens to the rolls, removing citizens from the rolls, and monitoring each bill on the floor and taking timely action on it (such as putting it to vote, moving into formal debate, closing a vote, or presenting it to the delegate). As Speaker, I or one of my deputies will attend to these tasks each and every day of the term, with no exception. These are the nuts and bolts of the job, and the most important. They aren't hard - anyone can do them. But they have to be done each and every day and if you elect me, I promise they will be.

2. A well-informed citizenry
During my term as speaker, the weekly digest was published 20 times in 20 weeks, between May 24th and October 12th. That is the kind of consistency and passionate commitment that I can bring to this office. As speaker, I will be committed to keeping the RA informed through that weekly publication, as well as through the Speaker's Desk thread (for more urgent announcements). In the past, the digest has included the results of completed votes from the previous week, the status of bills on the floor, and other important regional news. It also included a humorous bit from each member of the office - in fact, that was the origin of SillyString's Silly Advice, which is now featured in The Northern Lights!

3. A corps of well-trained deputies
Well trained deputies are essential to the smooth operation of the office. As speaker, I would implement a rotating duty roster to ensure that every member of the office received training and practice in carrying out each daily task, as well as the preparation of the Digest. I also think that it's important that a single bill be managed from start to finish by the same member of the office, for consistency. So if I designated a deputy to move a bill into formal debate, they would then be responsible for that bill up until the completion of the vote and, if necessary, presentation to the delegate. My goal for the upcoming term is to have three deputies completely trained to be outstanding speakers by September 1st.

4. Recognition for legislators
This is an idea that I had late in my term as speaker that I never had the chance to carry out. I think it would be fantastic to recognize legislators for their accomplishments. I think the first time that someone authors a bill that eventually becomes law, they ought to receive a badge for their signature that shows they have contributed in some way to our laws. This would be conferred automatically on anyone who qualified for it after the program began. Another idea for recognition I have would be an award for outstanding legislators, who have contributed their best efforts to our legal system. This award would take nominations from the public on a constant basis, and be awarded by a selection committee at the end of each legislative term. The committee would consist of both newer and older members of the region, and, after the first term, it would include past winners of the award who were still active. I think these awards would encourage legislative activity among new members and reward those who contribute the most to our laws.

With my experience, skills, and passion for the office, I am the best candidate for Speaker. I hope you agree, and I ask for your vote. The Speaker's Office has always held a special place in my heart, and I feel that more than anywhere else in NationStates, I truly belong there. I will be happy to answer any questions you have for me in this thread!

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

It brings me great pleasure to see your campaign, and you have my support.

What do you think has been most memorable event for the RA during this last term? What do you think has been the strength of the current Speaker and what, if anything do you think they could improve on?

 

[Tomb]

Best of luck to you COE, you have my support as well.

~ Tomb

 

[Andrew]

Good Luck COE

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Thank you to Tomb for your support, and thanks Andrew for the well wishes.

It brings me great pleasure to see your campaign, and you have my support.

What do you think has been most memorable event for the RA during this last term? What do you think has been the strength of the current Speaker and what, if anything do you think they could improve on?

Most memorable? Probably the controversy over conflicts of interest among court justices, and the new legislation that came out of that. There were strong opinions on both sides, and a close vote to determine the legislative response. New voices and old voices both found places in the debate. There's no doubt that legislative oversight of the court is an important issue, and it was good to see the assembly give it the attention it deserves.

I think Bootsie's greatest strength as speaker is a fierce dedication to the office and a strong desire to do a good job. It's unfortunate that Nwahs disappeared early in this term, because it meant that Bootsie had to learn a lot about being speaker on the job, instead of being well prepared by a robust training regimen. That brings me to his biggest opportunity for improvement - his level of knowledge and experience of the operations of the speaker's office. With more time to train and prepare, I think Bootsie's term as speaker would have gone much more smoothly. Nwahs disappeared slowly, which meant that for a long period of time, he was responsible for the upkeep of the rolls, and wasn't doing it. That led to Bootsie inheriting a bit of a mess that he was ill equipped to handle. It was some time before he and his deputies were able to get things back in order.

Thank you for your support and your questions!

 

[RPI]

It was some time before he and his deputies were able to get things back in order.

That was when I joined

Good luck, COE. You are definitely a worthy opponent.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Thank you for the well wishes, RPI! Best of luck to you as well.

 

[Alta]

COE, what's the one thing that differentiates or will differentiate you from the other candidates for Speaker (Bootsie, RPI, and Mr. Insanity, as I write this)?

 

[Cormac]

Despite some differences we've had in the past, you were a great Speaker before and I'm sure you'll be a great Speaker again. You have my vote.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

COE, what's the one thing that differentiates or will differentiate you from the other candidates for Speaker (Bootsie, RPI, and Mr. Insanity, as I write this)?

There is no other candidate in the race with as long and successful a history of service in the speaker's office as I have. This is what sets me apart from the others. Thank you for your question!

Great Brigantia, thank you for your support.

 

[Severisen]

We've worked together for over 3 years now. I've known you to be an excellent player of the highest integrity, and your dedication to this office can not be called into question. You have my vote, and full confidence.

Do you have deputies in mind already should you be elected? Are you only seeking one term?

Thanks for your unquestioned loyalty to TNP.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Probably the most efficient Speaker the RA has ever had. Definitely getting my vote.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Thank you for your support!

 

[Andrew]

This is interesting.........

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

If you had to create another acrostic for your name what would it be?

 

[Tomb]

COE, up to today, what positions have you held in TNP?

~ Tomb

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

This is interesting.........

Thank you for your...interest?? You're a hard one to win over!

If you had to create another acrostic for your name what would it be?

If I'm allowed to use words from previous campaigns I would do: Consistency. Order. Excellence.

If I have to use all new words, it would be: Consistency. Originality. Enthusiasm.

COE, up to today, what positions have you held in TNP?

Speaker (January 2013 - November 2013)
Chief Justice (November 2013 - January 2014)
Minister of Communications (May 2014 - September 2014)
Vice Delegate (November 2014-January 2015)
Minister of Communications (January 2015-present)
Security Council Member (March 2015-present)

I have also served as an election commissioner and a temporary hearing officer. Thank you for your question!

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

We've worked together for over 3 years now. I've known you to be an excellent player of the highest integrity, and your dedication to this office can not be called into question. You have my vote, and full confidence.

Do you have deputies in mind already should you be elected? Are you only seeking one term?

Thanks for your unquestioned loyalty to TNP.

Whoops! Missed these questions earlier. As far as deputies go, I would like to keep any and all of those who are currently involved in the office, including RPI, Bootsie, and Alta Italia. If all three of them are available and willing, that would be a pretty full office, so I probably wouldn't be seeking other deputies immediately. If I tried to take on more deputies than that, I would worry about my ability to provide adequate training and oversight to all of them, as well as enough opportunities to exercise delegated powers.

If I win this election, I do not intend to run again in September, unless no one else in the office at that time was available and willing to run.

Thank you for your support and your confidence!

 

[Andrew]

This is interesting.........

Thank you for your...interest?? You're a hard one to win over!

I take that as a compliment

 

[Eluvatar]

To what extent do you think people should base their vote on your performance as Minister of Communications, and why?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I will be the first to admit that my performance as executive editor of The Northern Lights was less than stellar. I started off strong, recruiting great journalists, and putting out a new issue relatively early in the term. It was the best issue to date, in my humble opinion. With a capable deputy and a great staff, I was riding high. But I lost momentum as the term progressed, and to tell the truth, my heart was not really in it. I am beginning to realize now that cabinet work is not really my strong suit. I am much more at home in the RA. Late in the term, I was dissatisfied with my performance, and really started to miss being speaker in a big way. With no deputy and no motivation, the production schedule suffered.

To answer the question, I think people should take my performance as Minister of Communications into consideration in this way: in the first part of my term, I demonstrated that I have the capability to lead and motivate a team effectively to achieve something great. But in the second half, I demonstrated that I can only sustain that capability for a long time when I am truly passionate about what I am doing. Voters can be assured that the speaker's office is where my passions truly are.

What I love about this region most is its commitment to democracy. It would be my honor, and it is my earnest desire, to be the servant of democracy and simultaneously its humble guide. The speaker plays the pivotal role of turning the will of the Regional Assembly into reality. From my very first campaign, I have always said this. It is a position of great responsibility that I am eager to accept once more.

 

[Eluvatar]

Why was it easier to write/organize the Weekly Digest than The Northern Lights for you, was it because it was shorter, because you wrote most of it yourself, because it was about the legislative process, or some other reason(s)?

Imagine an applicant for Deputy Speaker who you would turn away. What might they be like?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

This first question has a few parts, so I'm going to break it down a bit.

Why was it easier to write/organize the Weekly Digest than The Northern Lights for you, was it because it was shorter,

Well, there's certainly no denying that it takes a lot less time to put together. The Weekly Digest usually took about an hour to prepare for publication, and required relatively little writing. Like most of the speaker's work, it's not hard but it can be tedious if your heart isn't in it.

because you wrote most of it yourself,

I actually wouldn't say that I wrote most of it myself. It was usually split roughly evenly between me and at least one other deputy. Part of what made it easy was that I could lead a collaborative team in real time, review their work as soon as it was completed, and make any corrections on the spot. There's a social element to making it that made it fun. I think if I could have incorporated that into The Northern Lights, it would have been easier, but I chose to give each reporter a lengthy, usually independent assignment, and then it became my independent task to edit their work.

because it was about the legislative process,

This is true in part as well. The Weekly Digest is a single-topic publication, and there are no tough decisions to be made about what goes into it. Moreover, there is always content readily available - bills that passed, bills that failed, bills under debate, members leaving, members joining, etc. With The Northern Lights, the hardest part for me was usually deciding what stories would go in a given issue, and who I would get to write those stories. With the Weekly Digest, those decisions were almost automatic.

or some other reason(s)?

I firmly believe that a well-informed legislature is the key to a thriving democracy. As speaker, I saw it as my principle duty to make sure that the Regional Assembly was equipped to do its duty.

Publishing the Weekly Digest was an initiative to help those who didn't have all the time in the world to peruse every discussion thread and keep tabs on when things are coming up for vote, and what the results were. Those people are citizens to, and their voice will be most effective when they know what's going on! What's more, the structure of the digest helped keep me on track as well, making sure that bills weren't slipping through the cracks.

I would say the biggest reason that writing The Weekly Digest came more easily to me is that I was more passionate about its success, and I was doing work that I truly believed in.

Imagine an applicant for Deputy Speaker who you would turn away. What might they be like?

In general, anyone who is interested enough to apply for the job is worth giving a shot. Naturally, there are exceptions: people who have destroyed forums, or made threats on TNP, etc. Someone who gets turned away might be someone who has the capability to do the job, but whose motivations I find suspect. If I felt like someone wanted to manipulate their position to advance outside interests, or push a political agenda, they would be denied.

In practical terms though, I won't accept more than three deputies, so unless or until current members of the speaker's office resign, I won't be on the market for more deputies. I think more than three would result in not enough worthwhile tasks and experience to go around. Remember, the goal is three fully trained deputies ready to be great speakers by September 1st. If I had four or five deputies, I don't think they would all be able to get enough consistent practice in the daily tasks to reach that goal effectively.

 

[Eluvatar]

Those are excellent answers. Sufficiently excellent that I really don't have any question to follow them up with.

Instead, I have a new line of questioning, which I will present to RPI as well, for fairness' sake:

Imagine, hypothetically, that some judicial question comes up that all three of the elected Justices find it appropriate to recuse themselves from consideration. The Delegate presents you with the names of three citizens.

1. What would you check to make sure they were eligible to be Hearing Officers?
2. What kind of nominee would you consider inappropriate as a Hearing Officer even if eligible? (I.e. one with little legal experience, one highly partisan, ...)
3. Would you ever suggest alternative nominees to the Delegate? Would you ever insist on a particular nomination?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Imagine, hypothetically, that some judicial question comes up that all three of the elected Justices find it appropriate to recuse themselves from consideration. The Delegate presents you with the names of three citizens.

1. What would you check to make sure they were eligible to be Hearing Officers?

First, I would check that they hold no position in the government - this probably includes the security council. I think we ought to look into reforming that requirement, since at the moment it seems a bit overboard, but that's a different question. Second, I would make sure that no conflict of interest exists, using the definition in the recently updated legal code.

2. What kind of nominee would you consider inappropriate as a Hearing Officer even if eligible? (I.e. one with little legal experience, one highly partisan, ...)

The most important quality in a justice or a temporary hearing officer is good judgment and sound reasoning skills. Someone who exercises poor judgment or faulty reasoning I would consider to be inappropriate. Note that I can distinguish between someone who I disagree with and someone who reasons poorly. People can have perfectly valid positions that aren't my own, but there's a big difference between that and holding a position that is logically invalid or untenable.

3. Would you ever suggest alternative nominees to the Delegate? Would you ever insist on a particular nomination?

I would absolutely suggest nominees to the delegate who I thought were the most qualified candidates. However, I think it would be quite inappropriate to insist on a particular nomination, unless I truly believed that there was no one else in the region who was qualified - a highly unlikely situation. For that to occur, we would have to be in a pretty sorry state to begin with, and have lost a lot of the great legal minds in our generation. Our region is rich in legal expertise - I see no reason why I would need to insist on a particular nomination.

 

[Gen,Wolf]

Best of luck to you!!

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Thank you!

 

[Cormac]

Since I publicly stated my support earlier in your thread, I thought I should publicly note in your thread that I am now withdrawing my support and have voted for RPI, and why.

I don't like the way you've conducted this campaign:

1) I don't like that you sent negative campaign propaganda against RPI privately to his voters, which would have left both RPI and those who voted for you in the dark about your negative campaigning had it not been brought to RPI's attention and had he not brought it to our attention. Transparency is very important to me in a public official, and if you don't have it as a candidate I question whether you'd be transparent as Speaker. RPI, on the other hand, was fully transparent in his response to your attacks, and has demonstrated the transparency that I personally look for in a Speaker.

2) I don't like that you're attacking RPI for lacking experience -- experience you once lacked, when first running for Speaker -- and I specifically don't like that you attacked him for listening to citizen input regarding the delay of formal debate. Several citizens didn't like that delay, and RPI reached a favorable compromise that set our minds at ease. Your position appears to be that the Speaker should be uncompromising and rule the Regional Assembly with an iron fist, rather than presiding over the Regional Assembly on behalf and with the input of citizens. If that's what you think leadership means, no thanks.

I think you need to reevaluate how you're approaching politics in The North Pacific. I think your time here and the experience you've accumulated because the public entrusted you with office have inflated your ego and given you a false sense of your own importance in regional politics and government. I sincerely hope you lose this race to bring your ego out of the stratosphere.

 

[Darcania]

Following is a transcript of RPI's PM, which includes a transcript of COE's PM. If RPI's transcript of COE's PM is incorrect, or my transcript of RPI's PM is incorrect, feel free to point it out.

Greetings,

It has come to my attention that COE has sent out PMs to all of of those who voted for me in the Speaker election which read as follows (the following formatting is likely not how it was in the original PM):

Hi there,
I noticed that you voted for RPI in the speaker race. I was wondering what factors went into your decision, and if there is any way I can persuade you to give me your support. I will be the first to admit that RPI is a very impressive newcomer to our region. In just three short months, he has become a very capable deputy speaker, and it's understandable that many would think he is ready to take on the leadership role of speaker. After all, he's doing most of the adding and removing of citizens from the rolls, opening and closing votes, etc. There's no doubt that he's got the hang of most of the daily tasks. However, when it comes to managing debate, training deputies, and keeping the legislature informed, he is sorely untested. Just a few days ago, he actually had to come to me and ask if it was legal to take a bill out of formal debate. Then, when he was challenged on it, he compromised his position and set a firm time for it to go back into debate. Now, whether you agree with those decisions or not, it still reflects a lack of executive thinking and familiarity with the rules and procedures. These are essential qualities that need more training and practice. It's not surprising, since the only speaker he's seen in action is Bootsie, and those were his weak points as well. In summary, he doesn't have the self-assurance and executive-thinking skills that come from spending time in the region. Those skills are most important when it comes to leading a team of deputies, and training them to be future speakers. As capable as RPI is, if he is elected I predict that he will probably come into the office focusing on his own term, and making it the best it can be, and then he'll probably join the court or the cabinet or whatever and consider it a job well done. I don't know if he has the foresight and the long-term thinking to plan ahead for future terms and ensure that adequate replacements for him are ready when he leaves. I also doubt his ability to train them well while he's still growing in his own understanding of the procedures of the office. Right now, he is an A+ deputy - there's no doubt about that. But I don't think this is the best time for him to become speaker.

You might be asking what makes me any better, then? Well, as much as I've talked about my experience, it's not experience that makes me the better candidate. It's what I have proved through that experience. In my ten months as speaker, I demonstrated and proved:
1) I can produce a consistent weekly digest to inform the legislature
2) I can train deputies who are then capable of training others (I trained Zyvet who trained Nwahs)
3) I have a complete and thorough knowledge of the RA rules and procedures (I WROTE most of them)
4) I am capable of adapting procedures to new laws
And many other things as well.

RPI has a lot of potential, but I have proven over a period of several terms that I am an excellent speaker. In that way, RPI is a riskier bet, and I am a sure thing. If you vote for me, you know what you're going to get: 100% excellence from day 1. You can also be sure that I will leave the office better than I found it.
Once again, I ask for your support. You won't be sorry.

Yours sincerely,
COE

I'd like to take the time to address these things. Now, there a lot of compliments in here, but there are also many things that are not backed up or incorrectly assumed. Let's begin, shall we?:

However, when it comes to managing debate, training deputies, and keeping the legislature informed, he is sorely untested.

I am perfectly capable of managing debate, in fact, I have had to take a few actions as of recent so that a specific debate remained on topic and I had to step in in order to end a back and forth display of indecorum between multiple parties.
On training deputies, I am not a Speaker as of yet, and therefore it is not my duty to train deputies. If I am elected, I will be perfectly capable of passing on the knowledge I have gained onto my deputies; in real life, I used to tutor a lot of children, and I personally find it easy to take something that I have a lot of knowledge about and teach that to other people. My deputies will be perfectly capable of handling their duties.
"Keeping the legislature informed" is not a particularly difficult task. Bootsie pledged to begin The Orator, a new version of the Weekly Digest that COE began, and Bootsie admitted that he found it tough to send out an edition of The Orator every week; I would have done it, but as Deputy Speaker, Bootsie never delegated that responsibility unto me, and so I found that it wouldn't be a great idea for me to just take that responsibility without him giving it to me. I, being especially active on the forums and onsite, would gladly send PMs or telegrams to citizens in order to inform them of happenings within the Regional Assembly; proposals before the RA, bills up for vote, passed bills, etc. If I am elected, I will work toward having a better and more informed citizenry.

Just a few days ago, he actually had to come to me and ask if it was legal to take a bill out of formal debate. Then, when he was challenged on it, he compromised his position and set a firm time for it to go back into debate. Now, whether you agree with those decisions or not, it still reflects a lack of executive thinking and familiarity with the rules and procedures.

Now, this is partially a lie; I never went to COE with this question, but that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about my reasoning for putting the set time for when the proposal in question- flemingovia's proposed amendment to the NPA Doctrine. I knew that I definitely wanted more discussion to occur on this proposal, as this was the proposal which I recently had to take action to put the train back on its track; this was the proposal which I mentioned earlier that got very far off topic, and there were many indecorous posts made. I wanted to give this proposal a chance to have some real discussion. Now, I said that the proposal would go back into formal debate after two days because I personally felt that two days would provide an adequate amount of time for it to be further discussed, and coming to this conclusion actual demonstrates that I am very capable of executive thinking; if I had demonstrated a lack of executive thinking, I would never have sent this proposal out of formal debate and back into the discussion phase to begin with, I would have simply let the proposal go to vote as it was without any further discussion. I would also like to note that I am extremely familiar with the rules and procedures of the Regional Assembly; there have been times where I simply sat down and read through all of TNP's legal documents, though focusing mostly on everything regarding the Regional Assembly, the Speaker, and their Deputies. Please don't believe the false information which you have been fed.

As capable as RPI is, if he is elected I predict that he will probably come into the office focusing on his own term, and making it the best it can be, and then he'll probably join the court or the cabinet or whatever and consider it a job well done. I don't know if he has the foresight and the long-term thinking to plan ahead for future terms and ensure that adequate replacements for him are ready when he leaves. I also doubt his ability to train them well while he's still growing in his own understanding of the procedures of the office.

First of all, I would just like to say that I will not leave the Speaker's Office just like that and go to some other branch; the Regional Assembly is where my heart lies. I will put up a fight before I have to leave, and it will be a tough fight. Second, I am always thinking of the future and what it might bring; I would not simply thing all about me, me, me. I would always keep the welfare and future of my Deputy Speakers in mind, and I would try as hard as I possibly can to pass all of the knowledge that I have learned and will continue to learn on to them. No exceptions. Thirdly, regarding this: "I also doubt his ability to train them well while he's still growing in his own understanding of the procedures of the office;" I am very confident in my understanding of the procedures and laws governing the Speaker's Office and the Regional Assembly, and I know that I would be able to train my Deputies in all aspects of the Speaker's Office.

Please do take to heart all that I have said here, and after you have thought on it, decide whom you are going to vote for. I really hope you decide to vote for me; I can guarantee that my performance as Speaker would not disappoint.

Thank you for your time,
RPI
Deputy Speaker of the Regional Assembly and May 2015 Speaker Candidate

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

That is a correct transcript of the private message I sent to several voters who cast ballots for RPI. It was an effort to draw attention to the contrasts between my opponent and myself. In a two-candidate race, voters are forced to make a comparison between two options, and they often solicit information from candidates about the differences between them. My message was simply an attempt to frame that comparison the way I honestly see it, and persuade people to vote for me.

There was a factual error that RPI pointed out to me after the message was sent. He did not ask me if withdrawing a bill from formal debate was legal, he asked Asta in a channel that I was in. I apologize for the error. I am also sorry that RPI was hurt by my assessment of his qualities as a potential speaker. I stand by it as my honest opinion, but it was not my intention to hurt anyone. I think RPI has room for growth in these areas, and if I am elected speaker, it is my full intention to give him every opportunity to improve in them as my deputy.

I will naturally be happy to answer anyone's questions about these issues.

 

[Cormac]

That is a correct transcript of the private message I sent to several voters who cast ballots for RPI. It was an effort to draw attention to the contrasts between my opponent and myself. In a two-candidate race, voters are forced to make a comparison between two options, and they often solicit information from candidates about the differences between them. My message was simply an attempt to frame that comparison the way I honestly see it, and persuade people to vote for me.

There was a factual error that RPI pointed out to me after the message was sent. He did not ask me if withdrawing a bill from formal debate was legal, he asked Asta in a channel that I was in. I apologize for the error. I am also sorry that RPI was hurt by my assessment of his qualities as a potential speaker. I stand by it as my honest opinion, but it was not my intention to hurt anyone. I think RPI has room for growth in these areas, and if I am elected speaker, it is my full intention to give him every opportunity to improve in them as my deputy.

I will naturally be happy to answer anyone's questions about these issues.

I have several questions, then.

Why do you think you can only draw a contrast between yourself and your opponent by highlighting what you perceive as your candidate's weaknesses?

Are your strengths as a candidate for Speaker so few that you must attack your candidate's qualifications, or do you just enjoy campaigning that way?

Do you believe it was appropriate for you to only privately draw this contrast to RPI's voters, potentially leaving both your opponent and your own voters in the dark about the manner in which you were campaigning?

What do you think it says about you as a candidate for Speaker that your opponent has been able to remain competitive only by highlighting his own strengths as a candidate, but that you have to go negative?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Why do you think you can only draw a contrast between yourself and your opponent by highlighting what you perceive as your candidate's weaknesses?

Are your strengths as a candidate for Speaker so few that you must attack your candidate's qualifications, or do you just enjoy campaigning that way?

I certain don't think that. In the same message as I highlighted my opponents opportunities to improve, I also went into detail about my own qualifications, and indeed, you can find throughout this thread other discussion of my strengths as a candidate for speaker. I enjoy campaigning in general, and I campaign in every way that I find appropriate.

Do you believe it was appropriate for you to only privately draw this contrast to RPI's voters, potentially leaving both your opponent and your own voters in the dark about the manner in which you were campaigning?

It is the nature of campaigning that you target your efforts in the places that they will have the greatest effect. It would make no sense for me to send campaign messages to my supporters, especially when they begin with "I see you have voted for RPI." I tailor my campaigning to the person I am addressing. I like to think this gives my style of campaigning a personal touch. Just sending out general messages to the entire citizenry does not have as great an effect as targeting voters who will make the most difference.

What do you think it says about you as a candidate for Speaker that your opponent has been able to remain competitive only by highlighting his own strengths as a candidate, but that you have to go negative?

I'm not sure I would describe my message as "going negative." It is not deceptive, nor does it paint RPI in an unfair light. It is an honest assessment of his skills and capabilities. As for what it says about me, I'm not really sure what you mean.

 

[Cormac]

I guess what I mean is that you're right there's a contrast, it just isn't the contrast you're highlighting. Either of you could competently serve as Speaker.

The contrast is that your opponent can campaign for the office without acting like a tool.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I have endeavored to campaign in the highest level of integrity and earnestness.

EDIT:

Either of you could competently serve as Speaker.

This part I agree with. Nothing in my message was intended to paint RPI as incompetent or incapable of serving well as speaker. On the contrary, I'm sure he would do quite well, and is one of the better candidates for speaker I have ever seen. I merely pointed out that in several key qualities, he has some room for growth, whereas I have a demonstrated track record of excellence in those areas.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

This is probably a question that is of interest to very few people, but it is something I have been considering of late and wanted to see what your assessment would be.

What would be your position as Speaker in regards to splitting out posts from a legislative discussion thread? My specific thought on this is that as a matter of record it would be most prudent to not split out what some consider "off topic" posts from a discussion thread. As we (Citizens) are all equally allowed to express our thoughts within the RA, would it not be best for archival and historical purposes to leave discussion threads as intact as possible?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Thank you for your question, DD. I feel strongly that posts should only be split from a discussion thread if there was an abrupt shift to an unrelated topic, and it is preventing legitimate discussion of a bill. So for example, this is a thread that I would NOT split:

Member A: We ought to have an official regional turtle. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Member B: Yes! Eluvatar is a turtle that has been involved in our region for many years. He would be a great choice!

Member C: You know, Member A, I think we have too many official regional icons. We already have a flag, a seal, and a coat of arms. Do we really need a turtle? How will this affect anything of substance?

Member A: You are always criticizing my ideas, Member C. The legal code isn't perfect - we can always add more things. This is just like [insert other time that C and A disagreed] Let me rant about that time for a while.

Member C: Interesting that you brought up that time. Let me explain how I was right and you were wrong there, setting aside discussion of this bill.

I don't see anything wrong with that sort of exchange, and there's no need to stifle it. Not only for historical reasons, but also because the floor of the RA is the only real place to have those sort of discussions, and it doesn't make sense to create a new thread for each one.

THIS is more the sort of thing I would split:

Member A: I propose that we adopt Eluvatar as the official regional turtle.

Member B: I do not support this proposal. We should stick to the regional icons we have.

Member A: Well all I have to say to that is players gonna play play play play play and the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate I'm just gonna shake shake shake shake shake...shake it off! Shake it off!

Member C: DUDE I LOVE TAYLOR SWIFT! Did you see that new music video on youtube. Here, lemme link to it.

Member D:Ughhhh Taylor Swift is a horrible musician and you all have terrible taste in music.

Short of that, I don't normally see much need to split threads. On a related note, I generally don't like seeing discussion threads locked unless there's a moderation reason to do so. Just because a bill passed or failed doesn't mean that discussion of the issue can't continue in the thread for that bill, and if a thread has gone a long time without any discussion, that's what the archives are for.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

In response to popular demand that the public know how I am campaigning, I would like to announce that from now on, any campaign-related message I send (except for private one-on-one discussion) will be posted here in full, along a description of who it is being sent to. I would also like to invite RPI to do the same. To begin, here is the message that I am about to send to everyone who voted for me in the original round of voting. It will be sent by PM and telegram.

Hello there!

First and foremost, I would like thank each and every one of you for your support in the election for speaker, and for your vote. Without every single one of your votes (and I mean it!) the result would have been very different.

The result was a dead tie between myself and my opponent. Now, voting has been restarted, and I need every single one of you to go to that thread and vote me for again if I'm going to win this thing. Please continue your support by voting for me again.

Please realize the vital importance of your vote in this election. With the race so close, the loss of a single vote could change the entire outcome. Please head over to the voting thread here, and vote for Crushing Our Enemies right now! http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7389836/

Once again, the vote has *restarted* so if you voted before, you need to vote again for it to be counted! Thank you again for your support!

Yours sincerely,
COE

So that I can be sure everyone will recieve this message in a timely manner, I am sending it through telegram and private message on the forum. I apologize for the duplication.