Crushing Our Enemies is a candidate for Justice

Crushing Our Enemies

Crushing Our Enemies

TNPer
-
-
I have accepted a nomination for justice from Former Delegate Tomb. I now invite my fellow citizens to share their thoughts on my candidacy, and my suitability for office. I admit this is a rather risky form of campaigning (if it can even be called that), because I am relinquishing control of my personal narrative to the citizenry at large. Rather than make a personal case for myself and a direct appeal for votes, I am inviting those who have worked with me and seen how I act in office publicly evaluate my service record and character. In particular, I have prepared the following questionnaire, to be completed by anyone who feels they know me well enough to answer the questions confidently:
Code: 
[b]Do you consider me to be a person of sound judgment? Why or why not?[/b]

[b]Do you consider me to be a person of good character? Why or why not?[/b]

[b]In your considered opinion, do I take seriously the obligations of public office? How so, or how not?[/b]

[b]In what office do you think I have done the best job? The worst job? Please explain.[/b]

Thank you in advance to those who take the time. If you have questions for me, I will answer, of course. However, if you are someone who has spend enough time serving with me in government that you could easily complete the questionnaire above, I would request that you answer my questions before asking your own.
 
Do you consider me to be a person of sound judgment? Why or why not?
Yes, from what I have seen (which admittedly is not a lot) you seem to have sound judgment and your argument have logical sense. While I have not always agreed with what you have said, I have always been able to understand the logic behind your argument.

Do you consider me to be a person of good character? Why or why not?
I have not been here that long but I have not seen anything that would make me think you aren't a person of good character.

In your considered opinion, do I take seriously the obligations of public office? How so, or how not?
I have seen some of the court cases that you were a part and you seem to have handled them seriously. Your posts on the forum and discord about government matters have also been serious so from what I have seen so far, you seem to take all TNP government matters seriously.

In what office do you think I have done the best job? The worst job? Please explain.
I have not been a part of TNP long enough to say.
 
Do you consider me to be a person of sound judgment? Why or why not?
I have always found your judgement to be well-grounded. We do not always agree on what is or is not legally or ethically correct, but you always have solid reasons for the positions you take. You are also always open to hearing alternative viewpoints that are also supported by solid reasoning, and you are willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong and adjust your thinking accordingly.

Do you consider me to be a person of good character? Why or why not?
Yes. I've never known you to do something you know or suspect to be wrong, and you are always willing to put aside your pride and apologize if you do screw up.

In your considered opinion, do I take seriously the obligations of public office? How so, or how not?
Very. You have been an incredibly conscientious public servant. As far as I have seen, you approach your tenure in an office with the goal of doing the best possible job you can, you stay scrupulously within the confines of the law, and - where possible - you introduce changes that leave the position somehow better for the next person who holds it. These are traits I admire deeply, and I have tried to emulate them myself.

In what office do you think I have done the best job? The worst job? Please explain.
I can say, with no bias or muddled thinking whatsoever, that the best job you've done has been as Speaker... boss. :tb2: Your massive reforms to that office basically all endure to this day, and have resulted in an enormously more productive and engaged role. A more informed citizenry/electorate, too, now that I think of it, since the Speaker's Office still sends out the regular digests that you pioneered.

For worst job, I have to say that was Minister of Communications, but I don't completely blame you for that. You started off very strong - you lined up writers and topics, you got a logo designed, you found editors and proofreaders - but I think you became rapidly disillusioned with the difficulties of actually getting other people to write things on schedule, and you didn't (couldn't?) put in the necessary time and effort to either keep them all on track, replace them with new writers, or write their articles yourself. But like I said, I don't think it would be fair to place this entirely on your shoulders, either, because it's not like the ministers who followed you didn't also struggle with the same things.

I would say, though, that the latter is really the only role I can think of where I might say you performed poorly. Every other position you've held - Vice Delegate, Justice (and THO), Speaker (and Deputy Speaker), and Security Councillor - you have excelled at.
 
Reading your response makes me nostalgic. I first got to know COE as Speaker, and his deputy was SillyString. I looked forward to reading the regular updates from the Speaker's office and the advice you would have. It was always informative and entertaining. I think COE would make an outstanding Justice. He is fair, logical, and has an almost-encyclopedic knowledge of the law in TNP.
 
Excuse me if I don't answer those specific questions, but all I want to say is I have you and your work in TNP in high regard.
 
Scorch:
Is there anything that you would like to change or reform regarding the court if you are elected?
Click to expand...
There's no doubt that trials, in their current form, are and have always been somewhat inefficient. However, I think we need to get out of the habit of changing the court rules wholesale after every trial, trying to figure out why it took so long and fix all the problems. I think the current court rules are very flexible - which means that the length of a trial is largely up to the parties involved. If everyone is interested in getting on with it, things will progress smoothly. If anyone has a vested interest in holding things up, things can sometimes get held up. Most of the delays are the result of everyone not being on the same page, not institutional flaws with the rules system. I'm not sure if that answers your question. Let me know if you would like me to elaborate.

Thank you to everyone who has expressed their support, and especially to those who filled out the questionnaire. Having only just recently returned to activity and citizenship, a lot of people here have never worked with me, or even heard of me. I am relying on the community to vouch for me, for the benefit of those for whom I am an unknown quantity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top