Roman for Vice Delegate

[Romanoffia]

Now that I have once again more time to dedicate to The North Pacific, I have decided to run for Vice Delegate.*

All I can say is that I am a good functionary and bureaucrat and only wish to do the job for the benefit of The North Pacific. I have been once 'Caretaker Delegate' and twice "Acting Vice Delegate". I've been on the Security Council for aeons and am duty oriented. My interest in being Vice Delegate is to promote the continued prosperity and security of the region as a matter of patriotic duty and service to The North Pacific.







* I just finished working with horses, etc., on two TV Series - one that went into an unexpected 4th season, and a second that required my expertise with horses on a couple of episodes (and no, I won't tell you who got their noggin bashed by "Lucille", if you know which series I am talking about. )

 

[Syrixia]

Seeing as you've been on the Security Council for so long I can think of no other candidate who should become its chief above you.

You have my support. Good luck in the election!

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

In the thread of another candidate, when asking about the matter of the Vice Delegate's security check, I learned a little about the Vice Delegate's performance of the check of which I was unaware. Namely, that the Vice Delegate does not always consult with the Security Council when performing the check.

I have a few questions in this regard. Firstly, is this practicality reported by one of your opponents accurate to your experience as a member of the Council? Secondly, presuming that it is accurate to your experience, how do you think it squares with the requirement in law that "All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific."? Thirdly, presuming that it is accurate and that it, in your view, does not square, ought the law be reformed to reflect this practicality or ought the practice of the Vice Delegate change so as to conform more closely with the law?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Roman! If you win I will so claim credit for giving you the idea

Now we just need Great Bights Mum to run for Delegate....

 

[Darklord]

Good luck to your campaign.Hope the winner wiill be the best for TNP.

 

[Tomb]

Good luck, Roman.

 

[Romanoffia]

In the thread of another candidate, when asking about the matter of the Vice Delegate's security check, I learned a little about the Vice Delegate's performance of the check of which I was unaware. Namely, that the Vice Delegate does not always consult with the Security Council when performing the check.

I have a few questions in this regard. Firstly, is this practicality reported by one of your opponents accurate to your experience as a member of the Council? Secondly, presuming that it is accurate to your experience, how do you think it squares with the requirement in law that "All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific."? Thirdly, presuming that it is accurate and that it, in your view, does not square, ought the law be reformed to reflect this practicality or ought the practice of the Vice Delegate change so as to conform more closely with the law?

Ideally, the Vice Delegate should check with the Security Council when doing security checks for new citizen applications. This is done for practical purposes as per certain requirements required of the applicant as per certain things they are not supposed to engage in or have engaged in that would preclude their acceptance as a citizen. I won't go into the specifics of what is looked at in a security check for obvious reason.

Usually, the person(s) who do the grunt work of doing a security check on applicants for citizenship are members of the security council and have access to the required information involving security checks. This generally means that someone on the security council is aware of the application due to the mechanics of the process and is a de facto notification. However, it is wise to consult the Security Council at large for the benefit of potentially getting information that may not be uncovered by the normal checks. It's sort of an 'intelligence' matter as per identifying 'bad actors' who may not be applying for citizenship without reservation, mental or moral (pardon the wonkish way of putting this). Ideally, the Delegate should consult the Security Council in some form or another, either formally or by practical means.


On your first point. In my experience, I have seen a few instances where a citizenship application has been passed by the Security Council. It usually involves someone who is a known "suspect" who is reasonably suspect of having less than above-board intentions.

On your second point. In absolute terms, the Vice Delegate not consulting with the Security Council does not square with "All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific." In practical terms, someone on the SC (usually someone doing the security check is on the Security Council. It is, in some ways, skirting the law for practical purposes and in some ways it actually conforms with the practical aspects of the law, and I am not aware of any instances where it has not, in practical terms, neglected the law altogether.

I could see where not consulting the Security Council on such security checks could result in problems and therefore such consultation should be perfunctorily performed to absolutely comply with the minutiae of the process.

On your third point. The law should be reformed to reflect the practical nature of security checks in a way that makes it easier for the Delegate to communicate on such matters with the Security Council in an automatic fashion that doesn't actually necessarily require a formal communication on the part of the Vice Delegate to the Security Council.

It would be easier to comply with the law in detail via procedural changes than legislative changes. We could simply create a subsection of the SC sub-forum as a clearing house where the Delegate would, by policy, post all new applications along with the Vice Delegates immediate assessment of the applicant for citizenship (or other checks which may be required). That way, those who perform 'administrative' checks can simply check in on that sub-forum on a daily basis and post their responses there. The results would be posted in the normal relevant thread in response to the applicant as per results.

That would combine the whole process to a more compact location where the SC would be automatically notified as a 'consultation' and where members of the SC can respond. It combines notification and processing into one location where all the relevant persons are notified and can respond ASAP without bending the law for practical terms.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Thank you for your answer.

If I may ask for some elaboration. You seem to be suggesting a fairly considerable expansion of the Delegate's role in the security checks (presently the Delegate has no role, in law), why is this?

On another subject matter, the last time you were in elected office (unless you have served in office since and I was not active enough at the time to notice) you were a Justice. If I may say so, it was not the most successful term of office had: you presided over TNP v Durk, which rapidly descended into farce, and you dismissed said case rather than seeing it through to completion; at the time of the dismissal a motion to recall you had been made, due to your conduct in relation to the case, and that recall would likely have succeeded had you not resigned before the vote could conclude. I appreciate that it has been some time (more than two years) since this and that the office of Vice Delegate is quite different to that of Justice, however, the events I have described do, I think, present an, at least, slightly concerning view of your time in elected office, so I would wish to ask whether you have any reflections on your time as Justice which you think may alleviate those concerns?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

When was the last general election that you were not a candidate?

 

[Romanoffia]

When was the last general election that you were not a candidate?

Oh, hell, probably more than a year ago. At least, maybe longer.

Thank you for your answer.

If I may ask for some elaboration. You seem to be suggesting a fairly considerable expansion of the Delegate's role in the security checks (presently the Delegate has no role, in law), why is this?

On another subject matter, the last time you were in elected office (unless you have served in office since and I was not active enough at the time to notice) you were a Justice. If I may say so, it was not the most successful term of office had: you presided over TNP v Durk, which rapidly descended into farce, and you dismissed said case rather than seeing it through to completion; at the time of the dismissal a motion to recall you had been made, due to your conduct in relation to the case, and that recall would likely have succeeded had you not resigned before the vote could conclude. I appreciate that it has been some time (more than two years) since this and that the office of Vice Delegate is quite different to that of Justice, however, the events I have described do, I think, present an, at least, slightly concerning view of your time in elected office, so I would wish to ask whether you have any reflections on your time as Justice which you think may alleviate those concerns?

Oh, I wasn't implying that the Delegate personally should be involved in security checks. The Delegate already has a full plate under even the slowest times.

As for your second point, the matter is totally irrelevant and, as such, I am not taking the bait.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Thank you for your answer.

If I may ask for some elaboration. You seem to be suggesting a fairly considerable expansion of the Delegate's role in the security checks (presently the Delegate has no role, in law), why is this?

On another subject matter, the last time you were in elected office (unless you have served in office since and I was not active enough at the time to notice) you were a Justice. If I may say so, it was not the most successful term of office had: you presided over TNP v Durk, which rapidly descended into farce, and you dismissed said case rather than seeing it through to completion; at the time of the dismissal a motion to recall you had been made, due to your conduct in relation to the case, and that recall would likely have succeeded had you not resigned before the vote could conclude. I appreciate that it has been some time (more than two years) since this and that the office of Vice Delegate is quite different to that of Justice, however, the events I have described do, I think, present an, at least, slightly concerning view of your time in elected office, so I would wish to ask whether you have any reflections on your time as Justice which you think may alleviate those concerns?

Oh, I wasn't implying that the Delegate personally should be involved in security checks. The Delegate already has a full plate under even the slowest times.

As for your second point, the matter is totally irrelevant and, as such, I am not taking the bait.

Thank you for your answer to the first question. If I may ask, in relation to the second, why is your past performance in public office irrelevant?

Further to the matter of checks, your opponents (apart from Lord Lore), to some extent at least, would reform the law in this area to more closely reflect the practicalities of performing security assessments.

Praetor (presuming I understand him correctly) and Yeraennus suggest that the law should be reformed to make it clear that it is only when the Vice Delegate is considering directing the rejection of an applicant that they should consult with the Security Council, this is how the law has been interpreted by the Vice Delegates past, it seems, and would avoid the potential inefficiency of the Council needing to be consulted on the vast majority of applicants who pose no more than a minimal threat to regional security. Yeraennus also suggests that the Vice Delegate should report regularly to the Council on those that are passed. 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.

You have rejected the approach of Praetor and Yeraennus (by favouring changing the practice to have perfunctory checks of all applicants (if I understand properly)) are you not concerned that this risks that slow and inefficient checks may present a barrier to potential new citizens for relatively little gain in terms of increased security? Do you have a view on the reform which was mooted by Lord Ravenclaw?

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?

 

[Romanoffia]

On your first point I am not taking the bait.

I have served faithfully and successfully in nearly every government position there is and have done so since the very beginning of this region sometime around November of 2002 and early 2003. That is my past performance. My duty and service to the region, long before about 90% of anyone here was here is my record.

Now here's the funny part about it all. When McMasterdonia resigned as Delegate, he did so knowing full well that my position on the Security Council and my number of endorsements would put me squarely in the Delegate's seat, and did. That is my past performance.

I faithfully executed my SC duties and my duties as "Caretaker" Delegate as I was obligated to do under oath and as my duty. That is my past performance.

Despite public commentary on the forum in certain areas implying disappointment that I did not go 'rogue', I did my job and my duty as a citizen of this region, a member of the SC, etc., etc., etc., and worked quite successfully to apply the system (which I largely designed although never get so much as a tit of credit for) to assure a quick and speedy transfer of power to the Lawful Delegate in as short of a period of time (about 48 hours) as possible. That is my past performance.

How does my past performance indicate anything?

How about being here and fighting several times though several coups and several 'Provisional Government' and being a founding member of the NPIA, and personally convincing Gates to withdraw Gatesville forces from The North Pacific and even having Gates give me credit for accomplishing this in order to silence the many others who sought to take credit for it. That is my past performance.

You want to talk about my past performance in service to The North Pacific? I could give you an earful that would take more time that is is probably worth and make public more information than some people would want to be made known. But I don't go on about it and rarely take credit for anything because it is my duty to keep my mouth shut concerning some things that very few people would even remember. That is my past performance.

How about ask the other candidates about their past performance. Let them tell you about what they did in The North Pacific back in 2003-2004 and since that time. As them what they were doing 12 years ago in The North Pacific. That is my past performance.

You ask about past performance of a candidate. What about people nominated to run for office, and these are people who have been here as long as I have, at lease, who don't run? You wonder why they don't run? I suspect that they know the grief and BS that will be sent their way.

For example. Someone nominated Flemingovia to run for Delegate. His response was to the effect that he and elections don't agree with each other. Yeah, Flemingovia and I have gone at each other hammer and tong in the past and in the most brutal way imaginable, but if Flemingovia threw his hat in the ring for Delegate, I've vote for him quicker that you-know-what through a goose. Why? Because of his past performance which he rarely, if ever, even brings up, and his past service to the region, most of which no one here is even aware of. But he's not a glutton for punishment like I am. And I can go on about a number of people who have been here longer than 90% of anyone here who sit on the sidelines and which very few people even take the time to consider, nor have knowledge of, 'their past performance'.

As for reform of the law: Obey the law, do what the law requires, do so openly, and if one does not like the way the law works or how efficiently the law works, change the law and for mercy's sake, stop complaining about it if you don't do take the time to try to do something about it. Sheesh. Everyone complains about the weather but no one does anything about it.

The best way to prove the inefficiency of a law or procedure is to execute the task and perform the procedure exactly as written. That will expose all the flaws and virtues of said laws. If you are in an executive position, you execute the law as written. You do not interpret it for convenience's sake. Sure, you can functionally work around inefficiencies when needs be, but if you have to do that for any period of time, you should get off your hind-end and suggest legislation to correct the problem. Executive interpretation only goes so far before it ultimately makes a sham of the Law. You can only get away with it for so long before you have the duty to propose a change and do so through legal means and not potentially reckless 'interpretations'.

As per private discussion in the Security Council involving the applications of citizenship, etc.,:

If we held public discussions concerning what might be interpreted as a security risk concerning specific applicants for citizenship, it would be chaos, and might forever taint an applicant for citizenship or membership in the SC (the latter of which is what I suspect you are really driving at) in the event that an initial security check precludes or discourages an approval of either.

That said, if someone is denied their application for citizenship or membership in the SC, they should have recourse under the law for a review and be made aware of the particular reason for the denial, directly if they so request, so they can either correct any doubt or defend against anything which might turn out to be arbitrary. That is only fair.

I cannot remember any longer time of peace and security for The North Pacific than we have now. No other time has been so secure. We used to have coups and other shenanigans more times than you can shake a stick at. We haven't had any real rubbish like that for years. Why? Because we pay relatively good attention to such matters as we should. Unknown quantities are exactly that: unknown quantities which level of uncertainty are considered a potential masque for a hidden threat. It's not paranoia; it's practicality - but that practicality should be expected to be applied in accordance to specific laws until those laws are changed or modified, and that is the duty of the Legislative Branch and the obligation of those involved in the process to call to the fore.

An issue that hasn't been brought up and has only been cursorily discussed about the SC is the number of people in the SC. Albeit, the major function of the SC is preserving the LOS in an orderly fashion, but too many people on the SC could potentially lead to chaos. We cannot get sloppy about who is admitted to the SC.

I remember having a really tough time getting on the SC because of the tough requirements early on. I literally had to fight to get admission, and I am someone who has been here forever. The SC should never become a badge of elitism, but by the same token, it should not become a free-for-all in which anyone who meets certain numerical requirements, regardless of what we know about them, is admitted willy-nilly just because they meet some set of numbers.

As for the SC being FOIA compliant, that is a security/intelligence matter. One never wants to make public any information that gives the details about what we look for or how we look for it. We have a code of ethics which we are never to transgress. Those who wish to deceive are not restricted by any code of ethics or morality. This puts us at a disadvantage, so any cautiousness on the part the SC or those performing security checks must be forgiven. Better to err on the side of caution.

I can say that everyone on the SC is acting without political or personal motivations. There is nothing personal about any decision or discussion I am engaged in, and the same is true of everyone else in the SC. The SC is above petty game-side politics which is as it should be. And I am sure that if anything involving security checks was otherwise, it would not stand for second.

We have codified law, but nothing in that law requires that any information that may cause damage to regional security be revealed. In fact, it is essentially prohibited.

This discussion and related questioning is beginning to go beyond the scope of the purvey of the Vice Delegate who is an executive and not a legislative function.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Thank you for your answer on your experience, though it does omit the period of your last time in elected office.

As per private discussion in the Security Council involving the applications of citizenship, etc.,:

If we held public discussions concerning what might be interpreted as a security risk concerning specific applicants for citizenship, it would be chaos, and might forever taint an applicant for citizenship or membership in the SC (the latter of which is what I suspect you are really driving at) in the event that an initial security check precludes or discourages an approval of either.

That said, if someone is denied their application for citizenship or membership in the SC, they should have recourse under the law for a review and be made aware of the particular reason for the denial, directly if they so request, so they can either correct any doubt or defend against anything which might turn out to be arbitrary. That is only fair.

The question was, indeed, intended to be about admissions the council, rather than another question on citizenship checks. With respect to "review" of the Security Council's decision not to admit an applicant, one way that an applicant can do this is to appeal to the Assembly (which can by a 2/3rds majority admit an applicant refused by the Security Council), would it not be useful to the Assembly to see the concerns of the Council to properly consider an applicant (indeed, whether they are refused or not, as they still require approval by the Assembly)?

An issue that hasn't been brought up and has only been cursorily discussed about the SC is the number of people in the SC. Albeit, the major function of the SC is preserving the LOS in an orderly fashion, but too many people on the SC could potentially lead to chaos. We cannot get sloppy about who is admitted to the SC.

I remember having a really tough time getting on the SC because of the tough requirements early on. I literally had to fight to get admission, and I am someone who has been here forever. The SC should never become a badge of elitism, but by the same token, it should not become a free-for-all in which anyone who meets certain numerical requirements, regardless of what we know about them, is admitted willy-nilly just because they meet some set of numbers.

Is this to say that you consider the Council presently too large (or likely to become too large in the future)? Would you encourage Councillors, and, indeed, the Assembly, to be more discerning in who they approve? Are there any particular tests or standards you would adopt or encourage as informal measures for prospective applicants (past service in the Delegacy or Vice Delegacy, perhaps, or a particular length of participation in TNP)?

As for the SC being FOIA compliant, that is a security/intelligence matter. One never wants to make public any information that gives the details about what we look for or how we look for it. We have a code of ethics which we are never to transgress. Those who wish to deceive are not restricted by any code of ethics or morality. This puts us at a disadvantage, so any cautiousness on the part the SC or those performing security checks must be forgiven. Better to err on the side of caution.

We have codified law, but nothing in that law requires that any information that may cause damage to regional security be revealed. In fact, it is essentially prohibited.

It is true that the freedom of information provisions do prevent disclosure of active security matters, seeing as this is so, what is the harm in extending them to apply to the Security Council?

This discussion and related questioning is beginning to go beyond the scope of the purvey of the Vice Delegate who is an executive and not a legislative function.

I disagree that it is going beyond the Vice Delegate's purview. While certainly law reform is a legislative matter, surely the law as it affects the Security Council is something which it is wholly proper to expect the Vice Delegate (and prospective Vice Delegates) to have some view on?

 

[Romanoffia]

The question was, indeed, intended to be about admissions the council, rather than another question on citizenship checks. With respect to "review" of the Security Council's decision not to admit an applicant, one way that an applicant can do this is to appeal to the Assembly (which can by a 2/3rds majority admit an applicant refused by the Security Council), would it not be useful to the Assembly to see the concerns of the Council to properly consider an applicant (indeed, whether they are refused or not, as they still require approval by the Assembly)?

Yes and no. The decisions of the Security Councils may or may not include information that is proprietary to the process (that is, such information about the the reasons a denial was issued may expose the methodology of how we gather relevant information, and such exposure may enable clever bad actors to exploit the ethics we use for gathering such information and circumvent the process. The SC gathers information about applicants to the SC and does so in a very ethical fashion, but logic dictates that the unethical always have an advantage over the ethical. The unethical know no bounds; the ethical are bound by their ethics.

On the yes side, there needs to be more discussion by the RA concerning SC applications other than a simple approval by the RA simply because the SC has approved an applicant. See what I am driving at?

I tend to agree with the point you are driving at. There should always be a discussion in the RA concerning an applicant who was approved by the SC and just as much discussion about an applicant that has not been approved. What I am saying here is that when an applicant is not approved by the SC, the SC or one of its representatives should also post a "Not Approved for SC Membership" thread in the RA so that the non-approval gets a fair shake.

If that attitude was taken in process, which is entirely legitimate to take, it would require the SC to give a valid defence of their position.

Applicants also need to be made aware that membership in the SC is to serve a specific purpose that transcends in-game political motivations and serves only the purpose to preserve the lawful Delegate an not to further any in-game motives. Membership in the RA requires that a member be separate from their in-game persona and act, in the context of the Security Council, above and beyond in-game politics and preserve the lawful Delegate (and remove rogues, usurpers, etc.) in a game mechanics fashion in order to maintain the entire system we have all agreed upon as a requirement of TNP Citizenship.

Is this to say that you consider the Council presently too large (or likely to become too large in the future)? Would you encourage Councillors, and, indeed, the Assembly, to be more discerning in who they approve? Are there any particular tests or standards you would adopt or encourage as informal measures for prospective applicants (past service in the Delegacy or Vice Delegacy, perhaps, or a particular length of participation in TNP)?

Yes, I would say that the SC is growing too large. And when that happens, the level of SC participation will suffer. statistically speaking. If you have X number of people on the SC, a certain percentage of them will always be inactive to the point that they simply fall away. If you end up with 10 X members of the SC, the probability that an even larger percentage of the members will fall away. We see this in the RA - we get a surge of members when votes really count on a specific issue or motivation, and, when that particular issue is resolved one way or the other, participation evaporates proportionally.

"Testing" for membership in the SC is a tricky thing and would be hard to quantify and qualify. Sure, a certain level of participation and a certain length of participation should be considered of applicants. But this is a game-machanics oriented issue. One of the things that needs to be taken into consideration is the applicants involvement and record in other regions if that applies to a specific individual. I'm going to say a dirty word here: "Duality".

Sure, we've had people in TNP who have multiple 'personae', some of which have done some nasty things to the region. Do we discount them because of that "Duality" out of hand? Not at all. If they display an ability to not let one personna to conflict with the other persona, we consider that. Again, the SC is above in-game issues and deals with game mechanics, and we should consider the person behind the "applicant" and their ability to separate the two "personae".

You know, I hate it when out-of-game and in-game issues conflict. It takes a lot of fun out things, but it is something that has to be dealt with in order to keep the game on a level playing field and in compliance with ethical consideration.

It is true that the freedom of information provisions do prevent disclosure of active security matters, seeing as this is so, what is the harm in extending them to apply to the Security Council?

It's harmful in the sense that it may cause in-game and out-of-game issues expand into personal conflicts. For the purposes of putting this in perspective, I have to put my OOC hat on, which may be taking an unfair advantage in this discussion.

I genuinely love and respect everyone who plays NationStates, even the people who have my guts, of which there are undoubtedly many (and most assuredly many over the years). Certain disclosures, while violating legitimate in-game security issues cannot be allowed to spread out into OOC perceptions that may result in in-game BS. This is a game in which personae battle or cooperate amongst other personae, not a personal ego-fest.

So, wearing both IC and OOC hats, we all need to come to agreement and keep IC and OOC out of conflict and not take things so personal when things go rough.

So, at least as far as I am concerned, personally, and it took me about 10 years here to realise this, the 'persona' you go up against is not the person who is behind it. I've become acquainted with a lot of people OOC via IC and have met a lot of people in NS face to face, and I am the better for it. I admit my mistakes freely. And I apologise to those whom I have offended. My in-game persona is not me. I wish it was, or could be, though.

And putting on the IC hat completely, there is nothing personal involved when the SC denies an application. It's just a matter of an applicant proving their intentions beyond a reasonable doubt. At least that's they way I vote upon it.

I disagree that it is going beyond the Vice Delegate's purview. While certainly law reform is a legislative matter, surely the law as it affects the Security Council is something which it is wholly proper to expect the Vice Delegate (and prospective Vice Delegates) to have some view on?

I do have a legislative opinion, but I do not have a legislative agenda other than keeping the Constitution in the fore. The Vice Delegate should be questioned about their political views in general, and as such, I have to admit your point on this particular.

Are there things I think that need to be changed? Sure. Should I push for them as Vice Delegate? Probably, but not to the point that it causes discord. Changes are incremental and directed towards a larger picture. Do I think we need anything major at this time? Not really. Those will come, and as long as I am Vice Delegate, I will only make suggestions that are absolutely pressing and concerning efficiency or a more even-handed way to do something.

I like to work with the tools I have at hand, and then, when needed, construct new tools if no effective tool is available. But those tools need to be a watch maker's tool and not a sledgehammer.

The thing we have going now in TNP is amazing. We've had more stability for a longer time than has ever been seen before in our history. We are doing something right and I think it has very little to do with game mechanics. It has everything to do with who we are and how we express who we are. Pardon me for expressing this in a very crude fashion, but TNP is the balls of nationstates. Let's keep it that way.