Bootsie/Praetor for Delegate/Vice Delegate 2016

Thank you for your answers to my earlier questions.

I would check precedent but I anticipate that the Security Council would need to be consulted rarely. I would choose to consult the SC whenever I believe that the individual could potentially present a security risk.
Click to expand...
Just in relation to the above, consultation is required by law in relation to all assessments.
Codified Law of The North Pacific:
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate citizenship applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

Could I ask another question, this time in relation to reform of the law. As you have advocated in favour of tickets in this thread (in answer to the questions of myself and SillyString), would you say that the law for general elections should be reformed to remove the independent elections of the Delegate and Vice Delegate and, instead, expressly link the two and require ticketing, or do you think that there are advantages to the current system of independent elections, despite the recent trend towards tickets and the advantages of them you set out? (this question is directed at Praetor moreso than Bootsie)
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
Thank you for your answers to my earlier questions.

I would check precedent but I anticipate that the Security Council would need to be consulted rarely. I would choose to consult the SC whenever I believe that the individual could potentially present a security risk.
Click to expand...
Just in relation to the above, consultation is required by law in relation to all assessments.
Codified Law of The North Pacific:
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate citizenship applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

Could I ask another question, this time in relation to reform of the law. As you have advocated in favour of tickets in this thread (in answer to the questions of myself and SillyString), would you say that the law for general elections should be reformed to remove the independent elections of the Delegate and Vice Delegate and, instead, expressly link the two and require ticketing, or do you think that there are advantages to the current system of independent elections, despite the recent trend towards tickets and the advantages of them you set out? (this question is directed at Praetor moreso than Bootsie)
Click to expand...
I am aware of that law. Indeed, I mentioned it to Asta but apparently that is not what happens practically and logically it doesn't make sense for the SC to have to rubber stamp normal applicants (which I believe constitute the majority).

I would follow that but I noticed this in the SC procedure:
Article 4: Citizenship Applications
a. Members of the Council and the Vice Delegate will discuss citizenship applicants who may constitute a security risk. Such discussions may be initiated by the Vice Delegate or any concerned member of the Council.
Click to expand...

To me that indicates that the SC only needs to discuss citizenship applicants who could be a security risk. EDIT: If this is not the case then I would indeed ask every time but if internal policy indicates it must not be done all the time then I would not recommend the SC waste their time.

Absolutely not. This would prevent both Lord Ravenclaw and Lord Lore to adjust their election plans as they would need a Delegate. The option to run independently should stay in my opinion as without it we would lose many viable candidates.
 
SillyString:
Oh yes, a critically important area for the incoming Delegate and Vice Delegate:

Bootsie, what will be your approach in the event TNP and the NS World are struck by a virulent (yet curable!) epidemic? How would a Bootsie Administration respond, what existing infrastructure would you make use of, and what new infrastructure would be required? To whom would you subcontract the labor for regional preparations?
Click to expand...

First, I'd hold the Z-Day poll, which is what we legally have to use. Usually though, cure is what wins, so I'll go into specifics on that: I would definitely use the tactic that I believe you used in our last Z-Day, which is to attempt to cure as many nations as we can, but as we know from previous Z-Days, there are those in our region that want to infect, and at that point, we'll need teams to take them out. I'll definitely be looking to our Z-Day experts, as the entire event is a science, of course.

Kasch:
What areas of The North Pacific do you believe require the most work/improvement and how do you plan on improving them?
Click to expand...
Communications needs the most work, and I'm not just talking about the Ministry. As a government, I don't believe we're doing a good enough job of updating residents of region onsite to what is happening on their legitimate government side. As stated in my campaign, the Information Ministry looks to solve this communication issue, and be sure we aren't using out-of-date information to inform our residents and fellow regions.

Yalkan:
Question for both of you.

What would you say is your most difficult time in TNP? How'd you overcome it?
Click to expand...
Oh definitely the beginning of my NationStates career. It was really awful how bad I was at being a player of the game, and how I didn't really get along with any of them. I overcame this truly this January, when Lord Ravenclaw, someone I served with near the beginning of my NS career, and we won our respective seats in the office. Raven taught me a lot about how to be more humble and more serving to the region, and I no longer seek to be forty seven different positions just because they all sound cool. As someone who has been at the starting line, I do want to let newer players know to turn to people who have been here a while. They really don't bite (except Asta, she's silly), and you'll definitely end up running for Delegate, even though you never thought to see yourself there. I hope I answered your question! Thank you!
 
Praetor:
Zyvetskistaahn:
Thank you for your answers to my earlier questions.

I would check precedent but I anticipate that the Security Council would need to be consulted rarely. I would choose to consult the SC whenever I believe that the individual could potentially present a security risk.
Click to expand...
Just in relation to the above, consultation is required by law in relation to all assessments.
Codified Law of The North Pacific:
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate citizenship applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

Could I ask another question, this time in relation to reform of the law. As you have advocated in favour of tickets in this thread (in answer to the questions of myself and SillyString), would you say that the law for general elections should be reformed to remove the independent elections of the Delegate and Vice Delegate and, instead, expressly link the two and require ticketing, or do you think that there are advantages to the current system of independent elections, despite the recent trend towards tickets and the advantages of them you set out? (this question is directed at Praetor moreso than Bootsie)
Click to expand...
I am aware of that law. Indeed, I mentioned it to Asta but apparently that is not what happens practically and logically it doesn't make sense for the SC to have to rubber stamp normal applicants (which I believe constitute the majority).

I would follow that but I noticed this in the SC procedure:
Article 4: Citizenship Applications
a. Members of the Council and the Vice Delegate will discuss citizenship applicants who may constitute a security risk. Such discussions may be initiated by the Vice Delegate or any concerned member of the Council.
Click to expand...

To me that indicates that the SC only needs to discuss citizenship applicants who could be a security risk. EDIT: If this is not the case then I would indeed ask every time but if internal policy indicates it must not be done all the time then I would not recommend the SC waste their time.

Absolutely not. This would prevent both Lord Ravenclaw and Lord Lore to adjust their election plans as they would need a Delegate. The option to run independently should stay in my opinion as without it we would lose many viable candidates.
Click to expand...
Thank you again. Some further questions.

I find it interesting that the practicality and the law do not line up in this area, might I ask what you think as to that? Ought the law be reformed to match the reality or ought the Vice Delegate and the Council amend their practice so that it conforms to the law? Might I ask also as to why it is that you would follow internal policy even if it seems to not conform to the most ready reading of the law?
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
Praetor:
Zyvetskistaahn:
Thank you for your answers to my earlier questions.

I would check precedent but I anticipate that the Security Council would need to be consulted rarely. I would choose to consult the SC whenever I believe that the individual could potentially present a security risk.
Click to expand...
Just in relation to the above, consultation is required by law in relation to all assessments.
Codified Law of The North Pacific:
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate citizenship applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

Could I ask another question, this time in relation to reform of the law. As you have advocated in favour of tickets in this thread (in answer to the questions of myself and SillyString), would you say that the law for general elections should be reformed to remove the independent elections of the Delegate and Vice Delegate and, instead, expressly link the two and require ticketing, or do you think that there are advantages to the current system of independent elections, despite the recent trend towards tickets and the advantages of them you set out? (this question is directed at Praetor moreso than Bootsie)
Click to expand...
I am aware of that law. Indeed, I mentioned it to Asta but apparently that is not what happens practically and logically it doesn't make sense for the SC to have to rubber stamp normal applicants (which I believe constitute the majority).

I would follow that but I noticed this in the SC procedure:
Article 4: Citizenship Applications
a. Members of the Council and the Vice Delegate will discuss citizenship applicants who may constitute a security risk. Such discussions may be initiated by the Vice Delegate or any concerned member of the Council.
Click to expand...

To me that indicates that the SC only needs to discuss citizenship applicants who could be a security risk. EDIT: If this is not the case then I would indeed ask every time but if internal policy indicates it must not be done all the time then I would not recommend the SC waste their time.

Absolutely not. This would prevent both Lord Ravenclaw and Lord Lore to adjust their election plans as they would need a Delegate. The option to run independently should stay in my opinion as without it we would lose many viable candidates.
Click to expand...
Thank you again. Some further questions.

I find it interesting that the practicality and the law do not line up in this area, might I ask what you think as to that? Ought the law be reformed to match the reality or ought the Vice Delegate and the Council amend their practice so that it conforms to the law? Might I ask also as to why it is that you would follow internal policy even if it seems to not conform to the most ready reading of the law?
Click to expand...
:shrug:

I wasn't around at that time so I don't know. It may have possibly just slipped through when the law was being written with that not being the intent of the law. I don't think that the internal policy necessarily conflicts with the law. I interpret that in the SC procedure that the SC gives preemptive assent to any applicant that does not constitute a security risk.

It's interesting to note that the law doesn't specify what the "consultation" with the SC.

Perhaps the law should be amended to make it more clear/make it reflect reality.

Regardless, were I to be elected I would definitely seek clarification on this matter and then attempt to change whatever should be change should change be needed. :)
 
What was your key achievement in the last term of government? You were both Vice Delegate and Chief of Staff, what did you achieve in either of those roles?

How important is being in-game active to you? Would you expect Ministers to maintain a strong presence to the game side/regional message board?

How will you keep your Ministers on track to meet your policy goals?

You struggled to process citizenship checks in a timely manner and seemed to not be that active on a daily basis. Do you think you can be an active Delegate?
 
mcmasterdonia:
What was your key achievement in the last term of government? You were both Vice Delegate and Chief of Staff, what did you achieve in either of those roles?

How important is being in-game active to you? Would you expect Ministers to maintain a strong presence to the game side/regional message board?

How will you keep your Ministers on track to meet your policy goals?

You struggled to process citizenship checks in a timely manner and seemed to not be that active on a daily basis. Do you think you can be an active Delegate?
Click to expand...
It is quite a shame to see you are supporting Plembobria, McM, as you are one the reasons I'm standing where I am today. You were sitting Delegate when I arrived on the forums, and you always were a beacon of hope to all of the new players, including myself. From that day I've wanted to make that same impact on the people that I encounter, but it scares me more and more that I won't accomplish that goal I've set for myself, and that the impact I've made thus far is worth nothing.

1. As Vice Delegate, I believe raising the endorsement counts of all of the SC members has been a very awesome achievement. I won't take the 1k endorsement breaking record achievement away from Raven, as he's rightfully earn that, but I believe that across the board we've seen a huge rise in endorsements with our SC members, that I hope can attribute a bit to me, if only just a few gains in endorsements that actually were mine. A number of factors definitely contribute to that, so that's definitely hard to call. In terms of my Chief of Staff role, I believe working alongside Praetor in the MoFA, in particular, as well as assisting in other duties related to the Ministries has been my greatest achievement. Obviously those two are quite general, but I've been all over the place this term, which has built my experience of multitasking a lot.

2. We play NationStates foremost, as TNP is nothing more than a region on the game. I personally am very active in-game, even if I don't post on the NS forum. I frequently post on the RMB, and will encourage my Ministers to use that as a way to recruit and communicate to our masses as well, as laid out by my campaign.

3. Unlike my opponent, I'm not going to nag my Ministers. I've served many leadership positions in NS and RL, and I've never nagged someone and they actually gladly listened and did the task. However, I'll set goals for my Ministers, and if they don't comply under my deadlines, I will be assigning consequences. In the past, we've had Ministers do great the first few weeks, then just stop. There are many applicants or deputies that can step in and make the Ministry not fail for that term.

4. Yeah, RL kicked my ass this past term, I'll be completely honest. I was active however, so I don't know what you mean by me being inactive. I usually was posting from my mobile, so yeah, using IRC was pretty impossible, so you probably never saw me on there. When I did citizenship checks and endotarting, I usually did them from my laptop. Now, RL has straightened itself out, and I'm now smoothly running through the weeks. I will be an active Delegate, and nothing is hidden from the beginning. Unlike my opponent, I laid out everything I plan to do this term, from the good to the bad, and I hope to accomplish everything I promise, no matter what.
 
These are questions for Bootsie (thank you for your earlier answers, by the by).

Might I ask if there is a specific role intended for Praetor to play in your government if you are both returned (or, indeed, if you are returned but he is not)? Would he be likely to continue as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for instance, or maybe hold a portfolio similar to that you have held this last term, as Chief of Staff? (I appreciate that you have stated you intend for the Ministries to be open to application, hence this question being worded in terms of likelihoods)

What did the role of Chief of Staff entail? Would you, regardless of who held the role, maintain it if returned?
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
These are questions for Bootsie (thank you for your earlier answers, by the by).

Might I ask if there is a specific role intended for Praetor to play in your government if you are both returned (or, indeed, if you are returned but he is not)? Would he be likely to continue as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for instance, or maybe hold a portfolio similar to that you have held this last term, as Chief of Staff? (I appreciate that you have stated you intend for the Ministries to be open to application, hence this question being worded in terms of likelihoods)

What did the role of Chief of Staff entail? Would you, regardless of who held the role, maintain it if returned?
Click to expand...
Um, I don't want to make any real clear answers now, as I do want everyone to have an equal opportunity at being on my Executive Council. Praetor, even though he is my running mate, is not guaranteed a spot on my executive council, and will have to go through the applications like the rest.

As Chief of Staff I got to be more executive than a VD normally is and oversaw the Ministries and made sure they were all functioning as they should. I was always available to assist the Council, and was there when needed. I'll definitely wait to when I appoint my Council to see if I want to appoint a Cabinet-level position like that again. I might open applications and then if I decide not to appoint one, let the applicants know, so I can stick to that stricter deadline I talked about in my campaign.

I hope I answered those to the best of my ability.
 
Do you believe scheduled cabinet meetings including all or most cabinet members in a live conversation are valuable, and why or why not?

If they are, how likely do you think it is that you would be able to hold them, and what could stop you?
 
I'd like to officially inquire on where you stand regarding the question of TNP's IM clients - do you prefer IRC or Discord, and if elected, do you intend to focus your efforts on one platform to the exclusion of others?
 
Praetor:
Zyvetskistaahn:
Thank you again. Some further questions.

I find it interesting that the practicality and the law do not line up in this area, might I ask what you think as to that? Ought the law be reformed to match the reality or ought the Vice Delegate and the Council amend their practice so that it conforms to the law? Might I ask also as to why it is that you would follow internal policy even if it seems to not conform to the most ready reading of the law?
Click to expand...
:shrug:

I wasn't around at that time so I don't know. It may have possibly just slipped through when the law was being written with that not being the intent of the law. I don't think that the internal policy necessarily conflicts with the law. I interpret that in the SC procedure that the SC gives preemptive assent to any applicant that does not constitute a security risk.

It's interesting to note that the law doesn't specify what the "consultation" with the SC.

Perhaps the law should be amended to make it more clear/make it reflect reality.

Regardless, were I to be elected I would definitely seek clarification on this matter and then attempt to change whatever should be change should change be needed. :)
Click to expand...
Your opponents, Yeraennus and Lord Ravenclaw, to some extent at least, would also reform the law in this area to more closely reflect the practicalities of performing security assessments.

Yeraennus suggests a reform of the law similar to your own (assuming that I understand your intended reform correctly), but would also have the Vice Delegate provide regular reports to the Security Council on applicants that are not specifically consulted on. Lord Ravenclaw suggests that the law could be reformed so that there was a dedicated Councillor advising the Vice Delegate at any given time, this would allow for the expertise of a Councillor to be made available to the Vice Delegate (who may be relatively unaware of some security risks and of particular individuals who may pose threats) and could avoid the inefficiency of requiring the advice of the Council at large.

Do you have a view on the additional idea of reporting proposed by Yeraennus? Do you have a view on the reform which was mooted by Lord Ravenclaw?

Your opponent, Romanoffia, suggests (if I understand him correctly) making changes to procedure to introduce more perfunctory consultation for all applicants, this could avoid the potential for a inexperienced Vice Delegate passing an applicant who appears to present no risk when a Councillor could have flagged the applicant as being a risk, why would you not pursue this?

In the past (before March last year), the Security Council would conduct discussion of prospective members of the Council in a forum that was publicly visible, they have since stopped doing so. What is your view of the notion of public discussions of applications to the Security Council or of the disclosure of such discussions once they have concluded, what benefits and drawbacks are there? More generally, ought the Security Council be subject to the freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law?
 
What will a Bootsie delegacy do concerning TNP RP/how will a Bootsie delegacy improve it if needed?
 
flemingovia:
I assumed the slogan was "we one the North Pacific" and that it was an ironic mis-spelling of "own".
Click to expand...
:rofl:
Zyvetskistaahn:
Praetor:
Zyvetskistaahn:
Thank you again. Some further questions.

I find it interesting that the practicality and the law do not line up in this area, might I ask what you think as to that? Ought the law be reformed to match the reality or ought the Vice Delegate and the Council amend their practice so that it conforms to the law? Might I ask also as to why it is that you would follow internal policy even if it seems to not conform to the most ready reading of the law?
Click to expand...
:shrug:

I wasn't around at that time so I don't know. It may have possibly just slipped through when the law was being written with that not being the intent of the law. I don't think that the internal policy necessarily conflicts with the law. I interpret that in the SC procedure that the SC gives preemptive assent to any applicant that does not constitute a security risk.

It's interesting to note that the law doesn't specify what the "consultation" with the SC.

Perhaps the law should be amended to make it more clear/make it reflect reality.

Regardless, were I to be elected I would definitely seek clarification on this matter and then attempt to change whatever should be change should change be needed. :)
Click to expand...
Your opponents, Yeraennus and Lord Ravenclaw, to some extent at least, would also reform the law in this area to more closely reflect the practicalities of performing security assessments.

Yeraennus suggests a reform of the law similar to your own (assuming that I understand your intended reform correctly), but would also have the Vice Delegate provide regular reports to the Security Council on applicants that are not specifically consulted on. Lord Ravenclaw suggests that the law could be reformed so that there was a dedicated Councillor advising the Vice Delegate at any given time, this would allow for the expertise of a Councillor to be made available to the Vice Delegate (who may be relatively unaware of some security risks and of particular individuals who may pose threats) and could avoid the inefficiency of requiring the advice of the Council at large.

Do you have a view on the additional idea of reporting proposed by Yeraennus? Do you have a view on the reform which was mooted by Lord Ravenclaw?

Your opponent, Romanoffia, suggests (if I understand him correctly) making changes to procedure to introduce more perfunctory consultation for all applicants, this could avoid the potential for a inexperienced Vice Delegate passing an applicant who appears to present no risk when a Councillor could have flagged the applicant as being a risk, why would you not pursue this?

In the past (before March last year), the Security Council would conduct discussion of prospective members of the Council in a forum that was publicly visible, they have since stopped doing so. What is your view of the notion of public discussions of applications to the Security Council or of the disclosure of such discussions once they have concluded, what benefits and drawbacks are there? More generally, ought the Security Council be subject to the freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law?
Click to expand...

I hesitate to actually commit to any form of reform prior to consultations with the entire body of the SC. Were I to be elected I would definitely follow the letter of law but I would discuss reform with the members of the SC. I'm not a member of the SC, I never have been nor have I been VD before. I would want to hear their opinions on any reform prior to moving forward. From what I've heard of past or current members of the SC that the VD consulting the SC on every applicant hasn't been done and wouldn't be efficient. I'd look for a method that is quick without compromising security.

However should something such as Lord Ravenclaw proposed be introduced I would suggest having a few Councillors if possible committed to guiding the Vice Delegate rather than just one.

I believe that discussion of prospective members should be private, however, should an individual be rejected I would recommend that they are privately informed of why. While it would be nice to have the discussions public the primary focus of the SC is security and I would imagine that it is difficult to truly discuss the possible security risks of an individual if it is open to the public.

As to the Security Council being subject to freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law, I am against any information being made public that could potentially harm TNP.
 
flemingovia:
I assumed the slogan was "we one the North Pacific" and that it was an ironic mis-spelling of "own".
Click to expand...

Nope. I think technically Max "owns" TNP. :P

Eluvatar:
Do you believe scheduled cabinet meetings including all or most cabinet members in a live conversation are valuable, and why or why not?

If they are, how likely do you think it is that you would be able to hold them, and what could stop you?
Click to expand...

I think Cabinet meetings that are live are very useful, yes. I'd definitely want to do one a month, at a minimum, as I see scheduling to be an issue for many in the Executive Council as there are so many time zones represented in TNP. If we can meet more frequently than that, I will definitely be open to doing them more frequently.

Lord Ravenclaw:
I'd like to officially inquire on where you stand regarding the question of TNP's IM clients - do you prefer IRC or Discord, and if elected, do you intend to focus your efforts on one platform to the exclusion of others?
Click to expand...

Discord. It is easily accessible, less prone to DDoS attacks and netsplits, and seems to be the direction that many of our allies are moving toward. Obviously, there are still some members on our IRC channel, but we really should be focusing on Discord and how it is a safer and more efficient option for our region. Many users on IRC have to use bouncers to stay on while they aren't away, and messages of importance can be missed.

Syrixia:
What will a Bootsie delegacy do concerning TNP RP/how will a Bootsie delegacy improve it if needed?
Click to expand...

Obviously I enjoy RP, and I have a ton of stuff planned in terms of some awesome RPs! The map reset has really messed me up though, so I'm unsure how I want to proceed in terms of that, so I can't be too specific on my answer. You know me though, Syrixia, I won't neglect something I love like that. :)
 
After reading through the debate you had with Plembobria, I've finally made my decision and have decided to support you. You seem to know exactly what you are talking about, on all topics, and gave reasoned and organized responses to some really difficult questions. You've also had eight months+ working directly with Lord Ravenclaw, and if you follow in his footsteps, I can only imagine that TNP will do great things over the next four months. I have nothing against Plemby, who is also a brilliant candidate, but in terms of bringing the North Pacific into activity and success, I believe that you are the best person to take the lead.

I'll support you through the vote, and good luck Bootsie!

(I'll make a decision on Praetor and the other Vice Delegate candidates when I've read through their debate.)
 
mcmasterdonia:
What was your key achievement in the last term of government? You were both Vice Delegate and Chief of Staff, what did you achieve in either of those roles?

How important is being in-game active to you? Would you expect Ministers to maintain a strong presence to the game side/regional message board?

How will you keep your Ministers on track to meet your policy goals?

You struggled to process citizenship checks in a timely manner and seemed to not be that active on a daily basis. Do you think you can be an active Delegate?
Click to expand...
It is quite a shame to see you are supporting Plembobria, McM, as you are one the reasons I'm standing where I am today. You were sitting Delegate when I arrived on the forums, and you always were a beacon of hope to all of the new players, including myself. From that day I've wanted to make that same impact on the people that I encounter, but it scares me more and more that I won't accomplish that goal I've set for myself, and that the impact I've made thus far is worth nothing.
Click to expand...

Just because I have decided to support another candidate does not mean that your contributions so far are worth nothing.

I believe that you are very good in a deputy or supporting role in Ministry's, but I am not yet convinced that you have a concrete record of achievements or that you particularly do well when left to your own devices in charge of a department for instance. Naturally this is just my perspective and I welcome your rebuttal on this point.

1. As Vice Delegate, I believe raising the endorsement counts of all of the SC members has been a very awesome achievement. I won't take the 1k endorsement breaking record achievement away from Raven, as he's rightfully earn that, but I believe that across the board we've seen a huge rise in endorsements with our SC members, that I hope can attribute a bit to me, if only just a few gains in endorsements that actually were mine. A number of factors definitely contribute to that, so that's definitely hard to call. In terms of my Chief of Staff role, I believe working alongside Praetor in the MoFA, in particular, as well as assisting in other duties related to the Ministries has been my greatest achievement. Obviously those two are quite general, but I've been all over the place this term, which has built my experience of multitasking a lot.
Click to expand...

What kind of efforts did you take to boost endorsement counts? I'm not aware of any efforts made to increase endorsement counts other than the standard WADP. In fact the endorsements of the Security Council are across the board extremely low. This also falls to personal responsibility of SC members though and not just you.

I just personally think SC members endorsements are the way they are because of the huge number of WA's in the region and more down to personal tarting than anything else.

Are there any particular policies you worked with Praetor in Foreign Affairs on that you'd like to see continued in the next term? Perhaps Praetor could answer this - where was Bootsie's input in your Ministry most valuable?

2. We play NationStates foremost, as TNP is nothing more than a region on the game. I personally am very active in-game, even if I don't post on the NS forum. I frequently post on the RMB, and will encourage my Ministers to use that as a way to recruit and communicate to our masses as well, as laid out by my campaign.
Click to expand...
I am glad to hear that.

3. Unlike my opponent, I'm not going to nag my Ministers. I've served many leadership positions in NS and RL, and I've never nagged someone and they actually gladly listened and did the task. However, I'll set goals for my Ministers, and if they don't comply under my deadlines, I will be assigning consequences. In the past, we've had Ministers do great the first few weeks, then just stop. There are many applicants or deputies that can step in and make the Ministry not fail for that term.
Click to expand...

I believe you'll find that setting goals for Ministers is not enough to ensure they are met. You also need to constantly follow up (another word for this is nag).

What kind of consequences will you assign?

4. Yeah, RL kicked my ass this past term, I'll be completely honest. I was active however, so I don't know what you mean by me being inactive. I usually was posting from my mobile, so yeah, using IRC was pretty impossible, so you probably never saw me on there. When I did citizenship checks and endotarting, I usually did them from my laptop. Now, RL has straightened itself out, and I'm now smoothly running through the weeks. I will be an active Delegate, and nothing is hidden from the beginning. Unlike my opponent, I laid out everything I plan to do this term, from the good to the bad, and I hope to accomplish everything I promise, no matter what.
Click to expand...

My impression was that it took a very long time for citizenship approvals to come from you and that the SC side of things fell by the way side especially as many issues were very straightforward and could have been resolved quite quickly with a calling from your end. The New Kenya case for instance would not have moved forward at all had it not been for Gracius Maximus contacting me about it directly.

I'm glad to hear that your RL has straightened itself out, and I hope that if you are elected you will be an active Delegate.

What exactly in your platform have you outlined that you would describe as bad, as opposed to the good? Can you outline some tough changes that you intend to make that you think are necessary but perhaps unpopular?

You indicate that you think your opponents platform is not as comprehensive as your own, could you outline specific areas where your opponents platform is lacking?
 
Kasch:
After reading through the debate you had with Plembobria, I've finally made my decision and have decided to support you. You seem to know exactly what you are talking about, on all topics, and gave reasoned and organized responses to some really difficult questions. You've also had eight months+ working directly with Lord Ravenclaw, and if you follow in his footsteps, I can only imagine that TNP will do great things over the next four months. I have nothing against Plemby, who is also a brilliant candidate, but in terms of bringing the North Pacific into activity and success, I believe that you are the best person to take the lead.

I'll support you through the vote, and good luck Bootsie!

(I'll make a decision on Praetor and the other Vice Delegate candidates when I've read through their debate.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, do attend the debate, mine was fun, and I know with some more candidates, it should be even more so.

mcmasterdonia:
mcmasterdonia:
What was your key achievement in the last term of government? You were both Vice Delegate and Chief of Staff, what did you achieve in either of those roles?

How important is being in-game active to you? Would you expect Ministers to maintain a strong presence to the game side/regional message board?

How will you keep your Ministers on track to meet your policy goals?

You struggled to process citizenship checks in a timely manner and seemed to not be that active on a daily basis. Do you think you can be an active Delegate?
Click to expand...
It is quite a shame to see you are supporting Plembobria, McM, as you are one the reasons I'm standing where I am today. You were sitting Delegate when I arrived on the forums, and you always were a beacon of hope to all of the new players, including myself. From that day I've wanted to make that same impact on the people that I encounter, but it scares me more and more that I won't accomplish that goal I've set for myself, and that the impact I've made thus far is worth nothing.
Click to expand...

Just because I have decided to support another candidate does not mean that your contributions so far are worth nothing.

I believe that you are very good in a deputy or supporting role in Ministry's, but I am not yet convinced that you have a concrete record of achievements or that you particularly do well when left to your own devices in charge of a department for instance. Naturally this is just my perspective and I welcome your rebuttal on this point.

I do, however, have much experience of overseeing duties of others, such as my term as Speaker (I'd say I was actually Acting Speaker when we were the most productive) and Deputy Minister of Home Affairs under Andrew. I did have a term as Minister of Communications, and even though you're right, the TNL wasn't released, there were attempts to do so.

1. As Vice Delegate, I believe raising the endorsement counts of all of the SC members has been a very awesome achievement. I won't take the 1k endorsement breaking record achievement away from Raven, as he's rightfully earn that, but I believe that across the board we've seen a huge rise in endorsements with our SC members, that I hope can attribute a bit to me, if only just a few gains in endorsements that actually were mine. A number of factors definitely contribute to that, so that's definitely hard to call. In terms of my Chief of Staff role, I believe working alongside Praetor in the MoFA, in particular, as well as assisting in other duties related to the Ministries has been my greatest achievement. Obviously those two are quite general, but I've been all over the place this term, which has built my experience of multitasking a lot.
Click to expand...

What kind of efforts did you take to boost endorsement counts? I'm not aware of any efforts made to increase endorsement counts other than the standard WADP. In fact the endorsements of the Security Council are across the board extremely low. This also falls to personal responsibility of SC members though and not just you.

I just personally think SC members endorsements are the way they are because of the huge number of WA's in the region and more down to personal tarting than anything else.

Are there any particular policies you worked with Praetor in Foreign Affairs on that you'd like to see continued in the next term? Perhaps Praetor could answer this - where was Bootsie's input in your Ministry most valuable?

I'll let Praetor answer this one.

2. We play NationStates foremost, as TNP is nothing more than a region on the game. I personally am very active in-game, even if I don't post on the NS forum. I frequently post on the RMB, and will encourage my Ministers to use that as a way to recruit and communicate to our masses as well, as laid out by my campaign.
Click to expand...
I am glad to hear that.

3. Unlike my opponent, I'm not going to nag my Ministers. I've served many leadership positions in NS and RL, and I've never nagged someone and they actually gladly listened and did the task. However, I'll set goals for my Ministers, and if they don't comply under my deadlines, I will be assigning consequences. In the past, we've had Ministers do great the first few weeks, then just stop. There are many applicants or deputies that can step in and make the Ministry not fail for that term.
Click to expand...

I believe you'll find that setting goals for Ministers is not enough to ensure they are met. You also need to constantly follow up (another word for this is nag).

What kind of consequences will you assign?

Aye, I never said assigning goals would make my Ministers magically want to do more. I am asking for reports done biweekly, at least, and I will be setting stricter deadlines for these. If a Minister is missing multiple deadlines and doesn't have a reason good enough for doing so, I will give their Deputies a chance to do it, and if they succeed, at that point, I'll be considering to sack a Minister for their Deputy. If neither can, I will be approaching applicants from my last pool for Ministers.
4. Yeah, RL kicked my ass this past term, I'll be completely honest. I was active however, so I don't know what you mean by me being inactive. I usually was posting from my mobile, so yeah, using IRC was pretty impossible, so you probably never saw me on there. When I did citizenship checks and endotarting, I usually did them from my laptop. Now, RL has straightened itself out, and I'm now smoothly running through the weeks. I will be an active Delegate, and nothing is hidden from the beginning. Unlike my opponent, I laid out everything I plan to do this term, from the good to the bad, and I hope to accomplish everything I promise, no matter what.
Click to expand...

My impression was that it took a very long time for citizenship approvals to come from you and that the SC side of things fell by the way side especially as many issues were very straightforward and could have been resolved quite quickly with a calling from your end. The New Kenya case for instance would not have moved forward at all had it not been for Gracius Maximus contacting me about it directly.

That is incorrect. I was actually getting clearance to post the case for the Security Council as those were posted over PM. Of course, those didn't need the proper "ok" from GM, but I was making sure I didn't break any forum rules in the process, even though that slowed down them getting to the Council. I've learned, and I will not make that mistake again.

I'm glad to hear that your RL has straightened itself out, and I hope that if you are elected you will be an active Delegate.

What exactly in your platform have you outlined that you would describe as bad, as opposed to the good? Can you outline some tough changes that you intend to make that you think are necessary but perhaps unpopular?

I believe the whole history section of my campaign discusses not just what I did in my offices that were great, but also some failures. I listed the Acceptable Words List, and went into great detail on many of my failures. I also plan to merge Communications with Gameside Affairs, which I see now is not popular, but necessary.

You indicate that you think your opponents platform is not as comprehensive as your own, could you outline specific areas where your opponents platform is lacking?
Click to expand...

His campaign is very broad, and I believe does not give quite of an idea what a Plembobria Delegacy would look like. I know I talk too much, but I really wanted in my campaign to lay it all in front of the citizenry for them to give their approval on. This will give me something to work on during this term, and help keep me with always something to do. If you want to see my term, look at my campaign.
 
Bootsie, IMO Job 1 for the delegate is maintaining the highest endorsement count possible, a job that Raven has accomplished brilliantly. How would you respond to concerns about your own endorsement count as Vice Delegate? Clearly, I'm like the pot calling the kettle black, but were there circumstances that prohibited you from endotarting consistently? If so, have the issues been resolved?
 
Praetor:
I hesitate to actually commit to any form of reform prior to consultations with the entire body of the SC. Were I to be elected I would definitely follow the letter of law but I would discuss reform with the members of the SC. I'm not a member of the SC, I never have been nor have I been VD before. I would want to hear their opinions on any reform prior to moving forward. From what I've heard of past or current members of the SC that the VD consulting the SC on every applicant hasn't been done and wouldn't be efficient. I'd look for a method that is quick without compromising security.

However should something such as Lord Ravenclaw proposed be introduced I would suggest having a few Councillors if possible committed to guiding the Vice Delegate rather than just one.

I believe that discussion of prospective members should be private, however, should an individual be rejected I would recommend that they are privately informed of why. While it would be nice to have the discussions public the primary focus of the SC is security and I would imagine that it is difficult to truly discuss the possible security risks of an individual if it is open to the public.

As to the Security Council being subject to freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law, I am against any information being made public that could potentially harm TNP.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your answers.

If I may press you further, on the point of SC applicants. The final approval of applicants rests with the Assembly, even when the Council rejects an applicant the Assembly can admit them by a 2/3rds majority. Would knowing the discussions of the Council and being able to see any concerns raised, or, indeed, the lack of concerns, not assist the Assembly in making a better decision in relation to applicants?

On the freedom of information provisions. Among other exceptions, matters that would, if disclosed, jeopardise the region's security are protected from disclosure under provisions; considering that this is so and that, as a result, only information which would no longer be a risk would be liable to be disclosed, I do not quite follow the implication of your answer that subjecting the Council to the provisions would lead to the disclosure of harmful information. Do I misunderstand? Are there circumstances where you would support disclosure of harmful information, for instance, where it demonstrates unlawful behaviour by government officials or organs?

Do you consider the Security Council at present to be too few in number, or too many, or to be about sufficient? If it is too many or is sufficient, would you suggest the Council and the Assembly be more discerning in those that are admitted? If so, would you suggest any informal standards or requirements which new applicants ought generally to meet (such as past service as Delegate or Vice Delegate or a certain length of participation in TNP)? Would you suggest changing the formal requirements for the Councillors in any way? If it is too few, would you suggest that the Council and Assembly should be less discerning and ought the formal requirements for members be lowered?
 
mcmasterdonia:
Are there any particular policies you worked with Praetor in Foreign Affairs on that you'd like to see continued in the next term? Perhaps Praetor could answer this - where was Bootsie's input in your Ministry most valuable?
Click to expand...
I can't exactly pinpoint one incident where Bootsie's input was most valuable. I've really appreciated having someone to ask that was (initially) less intimidating than the rest of you admins. :P I've really appreciated having Bootsie is ask all of my really newbish questions. Bootsie is often online at the same time as I am; as a result he gets my questions of who is X/who do I do Y/where is Z. He's also consistently provided general feedback to me on various topics that I have brought to the Executive Council or policies I put in place. He also stalks the Foreign Affairs Ministry and provides me advice on what pops up there. So I guess to answer your question the advice he input was the most valuable.

Zyvetskistaahn:
Praetor:
I hesitate to actually commit to any form of reform prior to consultations with the entire body of the SC. Were I to be elected I would definitely follow the letter of law but I would discuss reform with the members of the SC. I'm not a member of the SC, I never have been nor have I been VD before. I would want to hear their opinions on any reform prior to moving forward. From what I've heard of past or current members of the SC that the VD consulting the SC on every applicant hasn't been done and wouldn't be efficient. I'd look for a method that is quick without compromising security.

However should something such as Lord Ravenclaw proposed be introduced I would suggest having a few Councillors if possible committed to guiding the Vice Delegate rather than just one.

I believe that discussion of prospective members should be private, however, should an individual be rejected I would recommend that they are privately informed of why. While it would be nice to have the discussions public the primary focus of the SC is security and I would imagine that it is difficult to truly discuss the possible security risks of an individual if it is open to the public.

As to the Security Council being subject to freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law, I am against any information being made public that could potentially harm TNP.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your answers.

If I may press you further, on the point of SC applicants. The final approval of applicants rests with the Assembly, even when the Council rejects an applicant the Assembly can admit them by a 2/3rds majority. Would knowing the discussions of the Council and being able to see any concerns raised, or, indeed, the lack of concerns, not assist the Assembly in making a better decision in relation to applicants?

On the freedom of information provisions. Among other exceptions, matters that would, if disclosed, jeopardise the region's security are protected from disclosure under provisions; considering that this is so and that, as a result, only information which would no longer be a risk would be liable to be disclosed, I do not quite follow the implication of your answer that subjecting the Council to the provisions would lead to the disclosure of harmful information. Do I misunderstand? Are there circumstances where you would support disclosure of harmful information, for instance, where it demonstrates unlawful behaviour by government officials or organs?

Do you consider the Security Council at present to be too few in number, or too many, or to be about sufficient? If it is too many or is sufficient, would you suggest the Council and the Assembly be more discerning in those that are admitted? If so, would you suggest any informal standards or requirements which new applicants ought generally to meet (such as past service as Delegate or Vice Delegate or a certain length of participation in TNP)? Would you suggest changing the formal requirements for the Councillors in any way? If it is too few, would you suggest that the Council and Assembly should be less discerning and ought the formal requirements for members be lowered?
Click to expand...
I've found that in SC applications that are rejected when Councillors vote Nay that they often state the reason why they are voting against. I would support the members of the SC publicly voicing their opinions on applications if necessary. I will note that ultimately power in TNP resides with the RA and that a 2/3rds majority of the RA is able to amend the Constitution.

I don't want information to be disclosed that could potentially hurt the individual because they applied to the Security Council. I absolutely support the the disclosure of unlawful behaviour as in the longterm it hurts the region more.

I don't think that there's a current issue with the number of members on the SC. The SC shouldn't be limited to a certain member; if an individual has proven that they can be trusted and that their inclusion will improve regional security then I believe they should be accepted. I do believe that the minimum endorsement level could be raised. It's currently at 300 and there are 83 eligible nations in TNP that meet that. I believe that SC members (and anyone who wishes to apply) should be able to pass that quite easily. Quite frankly, if a SC member only has 300 endorsements and there is a coup they won't be of that much of an assistance as if they were around 600.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Bootsie, IMO Job 1 for the delegate is maintaining the highest endorsement count possible, a job that Raven has accomplished brilliantly. How would you respond to concerns about your own endorsement count as Vice Delegate? Clearly, I'm like the pot calling the kettle black, but were there circumstances that prohibited you from endotarting consistently? If so, have the issues been resolved?
Click to expand...
Bumpity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top