Kasch for Vice Delegate - May 2017

[color=5900b3]

---

Who am I?

My name is Kaschovia, I joined NS on April the 8th 2016 and joined TNP on April the 9th, 2016. I currently have 890 endorsements (9th in the world) and a population of 2.288 billion. I am the Minister of Communications, a Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Cultural Affairs and Home Affairs, Lead RMB Guardian, TNP's Foreign Envoy to the Land of Kings and Emperors, Albion and The Universal Allegiance, a Home Affairs Forum Mentor and Graphics Officer for Cultural Affairs. I used to be a Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Gameside Affairs along with four previous military ranks. I am an active member of the executive staff for all six ministries.

Why am I running for VD?

When I joined the North Pacific from the East Pacific on the 9th of April 2016, I knew this region would be a place for me to develop and learn as a player and a nation. The enthralling sense of history, community, efficiency and influence pulled me in and hasn't let go since. It is because of this, that I have decided to run for Vice Delegate. I wish to further explore the reaches of this incredible community and give back after all of the opportunities and experiences I have had here. I wish to represent this community and the great people that make it so much better every single day.

The next reason I am running for Vice Delegate, is because I care about the North Pacific. Being an avid and interested historian of NS matters, I know that this region has gone through some devestating times. Although I cannot fully empathize or claim to know what it was really like, I can imagine how it must have felt to lose control over the region and have to fight for the liberation against the odds. I am running for Vice Delegate to ensure that something like this cannot and will not happen, even if it isn't as likely anymore, the security and the stability of the region should always be a priority.

My third reason for running is because I see the potential and the desire for security in the North Pacific. Our region is one of the best regions in the world when it comes to securing the delegacy, and I wish to continue this. The top ten most endorsed nations on the game are all from the North Pacific, and this is no coincidence. We have a firm firewall of endorsements and influence that continually needs supporting. The safety of our region is balanced on the Security Council and the endorsement level that is maintained throughout the region, so protecting and improving this is another priority.

My final reason for candidacy is simple. From the very first day I joined this region, to now, I have always looked for ways to make things better. To spot the faults, and fix them. To look for potential in things that many people cannot see, and improve on them. To reflect on what I have done, and how I can do more, not just for myself but for everyone. It is my hope that you can see all of this in me, and invest your trust and support.

If elected, what will I do?

1. Create opportunities for further WA involvement.

• I will work with the Security Council, the Delegate and the WA Ministry on the improvement of the responsibilities and abilities of the Keepers of the North. I will introduce a higher position alongside the normal Keepers of the North, named the Ambassadors of the North. The ambassadors will contain Keepers of the North who have displayed extensive knowledge of the WADP and endorsement tactics and methods. They will inform, share, advertise and reward accomplishments, dispatches, threads and other WA/endorsement related matters. The requirements for the Ambassadors of the North are much higher than just having endorsed the Delegate the Security Council.

2. Maintain the structure and success of the Security Council.

• My second objective is to ensure that the work of the previous Vice Delegate, Tomb, is continued. The term just gone, he really engaged the region with the Security Council. He gave them identity and representation, and I wish to continue that. Polls, regional games/events, region-wide telegrams and advertisement are all part of this objective, and will be used appropriately. Alongside the Keepers and Ambassadors of the North, the Security Council will only improve in strength and support the foundations of security in which the Delegacy relies so heavily. Not only will I do this, but I will work to make sure that all SC applications are discussed fairly between the SC and properly dealt with.

3. Do what the Vice Delegate does best, security checks.

• For those of you who haven't joined the off-site forums yet (or just don't know what a security check is), one of the things the Vice Delegate must do, along with the Administrators and the Speaker, is security checks. They are, in the simplest terms, making sure that members who register on the forums are safe for citizenship. Using my best judgement and ability, I will ensure that all applicants are checked regularly and consistently. I have always kept up a high activity level, having made over 9,500 posts on the TNP forums. I am online every day, and always announce when I'm unavailable. I am on Discord most of the time, and never ignore Direct Messages or mentions, so if I am needed there as well, it is always a great place to reach me.

4. Provide reassurance and security, should the Delegacy be threatened.

• The most realistic interpretation of the Vice Delegate's role, is that they are mostly there to ascend to power if the Delegate goes rogue, loses the delegacy or cannot serve. They are there to ensure that if something like that does happen, 1) people know about it, 2) it is dealt with quickly and properly and 3) the VD and the SC work to get the VD in power. Once this is done, the situation must be de-escalated and eventually stopped all together. Now while this has not happened in a long time, and I completely trust my running partner in his role (should he be elected), nobody really knows what can or will happen during the term, so it is always important to have immediate action prepared, no matter how safe the region is.

Thank you for reading, and I hope to get your vote when the election arrives!

This campaign has my endorsement!

To describe you as a friend, a colleague, and one of this region's most brilliant citizens would be an underestimate to the appreciation I have for you Kasch and for your dedication to TNP. I'm honored that we're in this together.

#KATOMB

Thank you both for the support!

#KATOMB

I fully support this campaign!

Zazumo:

I fully support this campaign!

Click to expand...

Thank you, Zazumo!

You have my axe!

You have my support, best of luck

Thanks to both of you for your support!

You have my support!!

Thank you!

Full support!

I have a number of questions, some of which may be familiar to people as they are questions I have previously asked those who have stood as part of a ticket for Delegate or Vice Delegate (or who opposed such tickets) or are questions I have previously asked Vice Delegate candidates more generally.

Generally, why is it better for the Delegate and Vice Delegate to stand together on a ticket than to stand independently of each other? Particularly, why is it better for yourselves to stand and be elected as Delegate and Vice Delegate as a ticket rather than standing independently of each other?

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 use of tickets and the advantages you (presumably) see in them?

Do you think it appropriate for the Vice Delegate to have a role in the Delegate's government (such as being a Minister)? If so, to what extent do you think involvement is appropriate and do you not think there are benefits to being relatively detached from the Delegate and their government? If not, why do you not think it appropriate?

In the past (before March 2015), 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 (or similar provisions)?

In relation to the above question, Tomb has worked, as is referred to in his platform, to introduce changes to the SC procedure to make provision for a specific disclosure policy, regardless of whether you think provision should be made in law for disclosure of information, would you commit to working to introduce such provision in the SC procedure if elected?

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; would you encourage members to seek to join the Council?

You have my support.

Full support from me!

In response to Zyvetskistaahn's questions:

Generally, why is it better for the Delegate and Vice Delegate to stand together on a ticket than to stand independently of each other? Particularly, why is it better for yourselves to stand and be elected as Delegate and Vice Delegate as a ticket rather than standing independently of each other?

Click to expand...

It is different for every candidate, so I cannot say why it is better for all candidates who may potentially run together in the future, but I can express why I believe it'd be better for me and Tomb to run as a unit. I have trusted, known and worked with Tomb for a long time on a plethora of projects, and we work very well together. We agree on the same policies, recognize similar areas of improvement and know what we need to do to achieve our goals. If we ran individually, these similarities may have been clouded and lost in the heat of election and debate. It is as simple as that, we both think as clearly and openly as one another, and we know and agree on what we argue for.

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 use of tickets and the advantages you (presumably) see in them?

Click to expand...

No, candidates should always have the choice to choose to run either on their own or with someone else. This system has always worked. Of course there are advantages to running individually, but these change with each candidate. There is not a universally accepted portrayal of what a candidate may or may not benefit from in terms of conducting their candidacy and platform within an election. It is down to who the candidate is. I have expressed why I believe joint tickets can be beneficial in the case of Tomb and I, but for other candidates I cannot make a judgement because not every joint ticket will be the same.

Do you think it appropriate for the Vice Delegate to have a role in the Delegate's government (such as being a Minister)? If so, to what extent do you think involvement is appropriate and do you not think there are benefits to being relatively detached from the Delegate and their government? If not, why do you not think it appropriate?

Click to expand...

I do not think involvement in the Delegate's Government is needed if there are capable people prepared to fill that position, because security should the Vice Delegate's priority throughout the entire term. But if the Delegate recognizes that the Vice Delegate is able enough to take on a position within his/her government, then so be it. I believe that the Vice Delegate must always be primarily focused on keeping the security and ensuring the safety of the region, because there are people capable of doing a similar or better job than they are doing in the Delegate's Government.

In the past (before March 2015), 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 (or similar provisions)?

Click to expand...

I believe all discussion of prospective members should be conducted in an available and transparent manner. Applicants should recieve the appropriate feedback and advice based on their track record and their ability to meet the requirements of SC membership. This can be achieved if the applicant is able to view these discussions.

In relation to the above question, Tomb has worked, as is referred to in his platform, to introduce changes to the SC procedure to make provision for a specific disclosure policy, regardless of whether you think provision should be made in law for disclosure of information, would you commit to working to introduce such provision in the SC procedure if elected?

Click to expand...

I still believe that discussions should be made available. There is no harm in revealing them. Only revealing them specifically to the applicant would defeat the point of transparency and availability in the first place.

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; would you encourage members to seek to join the Council?

Click to expand...

I believe the number of SC members is sufficient. Applicants must be reviewed thoroughly before being granted or accepted, so it is understandable that this number does not change much at all. It is not my decision to make regarding changes in the requirements, as the Regional Assembly decides what changes, how it changes and why it changes - all I could do is suggest these changes through a proposal. For clarity, I believe the current requirements are fine. To round off this anwer, I would be careful when encouraging members to seek to join one of the most important branches of the government. The SC, as it stands, needs experienced, knowledgable and most importantly, responsible members. I'd be careful to encourage just anybody to apply for the SC straight away.

Hear! Hear! You have my support.

I like it, you have my support

Thank you for your answers. I have some follow-up questions.

In the past (before March 2015), 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 (or similar provisions)?

Click to expand...

I believe all discussion of prospective members should be conducted in an available and transparent manner. Applicants should recieve the appropriate feedback and advice based on their track record and their ability to meet the requirements of SC membership. This can be achieved if the applicant is able to view these discussions.

Click to expand...

First, there seems to be some of this question which was missed, namely "ought the Security Council be subject to the freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law (or similar provisions)?"

Second, your answer goes against the grain of most candidates I have put this question to (including Tomb in the last election). Most candidates have expressed reluctance about having public discussion of applicants, for a variety of reasons: that there are concerns that genuine security issues may not be possible to discuss publicly; that discussing popular applicants will be more difficult for SC members to do candidly if they must do so publicly (and that SC members could be made targets of political attacks if they were to be candid); and that public discussion may be harmful to an applicant who SC members criticise as being untrustworthy or lacking experience. What is your view of the merits of these concerns? Beyond benefiting an applicant, do you think there is any wider benefit, whether the applicant is rejected or approved?

In relation to the above question, Tomb has worked, as is referred to in his platform, to introduce changes to the SC procedure to make provision for a specific disclosure policy, regardless of whether you think provision should be made in law for disclosure of information, would you commit to working to introduce such provision in the SC procedure if elected?

Click to expand...

I still believe that discussions should be made available. There is no harm in revealing them. Only revealing them specifically to the applicant would defeat the point of transparency and availability in the first place.

Click to expand...

Apologies if I was unclear, this question was aimed at whether you would support a procedure for disclosure more generally.
EDIT: Quote silliness

You have my support!

First, there seems to be some of this question which was missed, namely "ought the Security Council be subject to the freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law (or similar provisions)?"

Click to expand...

The Freedom of Information Act affects the government, represented in the code as 'the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee.' The Security Council and the government operate completely differently. Sensitive security discussions, as you mention in your next question, do take place and could put the security procedures at risk - therefore eliminating a need for public disclosure. There is a fine line between the exact security issues and information within the SC, and the basic player level discussion. If the SC needs to privately discuss applicants because of sensitive and genuine security concern, then so be it. But if the discussions are nothing more than a routine player review, then I see no reason why this couldn't be revealed.

The Security Council shouldn't be pressured to release private or sensitive material, as it is in the best interest of the North Pacific, knowing what malicious players could do with the information, to keep such things from the public eye. This is different, however, from discussions based on an applicant's validity in terms of SC Membership. Whether or not an applicant meets the requirements (influence, endorsements, security risks...), is different from exactly what issues the SC might have in terms of security and how these are discussed.

Second, your answer goes against the grain of most candidates I have put this question to (including Tomb in the last election). Most candidates have expressed reluctance about having public discussion of applicants, for a variety of reasons: that there are concerns that genuine security issues may not be possible to discuss publicly; that discussing popular applicants will be more difficult for SC members to do candidly if they must do so publicly (and that SC members could be made targets of political attacks if they were to be candid); and that public discussion may be harmful to an applicant who SC members criticise as being untrustworthy or lacking experience. What is your view of the merits of these concerns? Beyond benefiting an applicant, do you think there is any wider benefit, whether the applicant is rejected or approved?

Click to expand...

I'll put this simply. The Security Council is an extremely important group. I don't need to keep saying this, everyone knows.

If an applicant cannot accept either the criticism that they might possibly recieve, or the reasons for their rejection, even if this said player is popular, then applying for the Security Council is not for them. As one of our most decorated and respected Security Councillors, Lord Ravenclaw, said recently: "Own your decisions, own your past, own your mistakes and your triumphs - this is something I have said for years." In terms of applications for the Security Council - this definitely applies to discussions and applications for the Council.

Public discussion should not be harmful - it should be constructive and helpful to the applicant. This is very different to sensitive security concerns and information pertaining to private security aspects of the region, however.

As Vice Delegate, I would encourage constructive, open-minded and reasonable discussion of all applicants, regardless of who they are. I would not - on the other hand - encourage the release of sensitive security information, as I have explained in my previous answer. This is not a discussion that the public eye should have access to, it is limited to the members of the SC and - in the interests of security and reassurance - should stay like that.

Whether an applicant meets the basic requirements and passes the security evaluations, however, is something the public could and should know. As I have said, there is a very fine line between genuine sensitive security issues and simple player validity discussions. The Security Council should be able to decide which of these things those discussions are, and whether releasing them to the public would be in the best interest of the region and the player they are discussing.

Thank you for your answers. I have further follow-ups.

First, there seems to be some of this question which was missed, namely "ought the Security Council be subject to the freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law (or similar provisions)?"

Click to expand...

The Freedom of Information Act affects the government, represented in the code as 'the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee.' The Security Council and the government operate completely differently. Sensitive security discussions, as you mention in your next question, do take place and could put the security procedures at risk - therefore eliminating a need for public disclosure. There is a fine line between the exact security issues and information within the SC, and the basic player level discussion. If the SC needs to privately discuss applicants because of sensitive and genuine security concern, then so be it. But if the discussions are nothing more than a routine player review, then I see no reason why this couldn't be revealed.

The Security Council shouldn't be pressured to release private or sensitive material, as it is in the best interest of the North Pacific, knowing what malicious players could do with the information, to keep such things from the public eye. This is different, however, from discussions based on an applicant's validity in terms of SC Membership. Whether or not an applicant meets the requirements (influence, endorsements, security risks...), is different from exactly what issues the SC might have in terms of security and how these are discussed.

Click to expand...

If I may, I appreciate that the freedom of information provisions are presently limited to the government, that is rather the point of my question: whether they ought to be extended (or whether a Council specific version of the provisions should be introduced). Now, your conclusion seems to be that the answer is no.

Why should an organ of the region, which is notionally to be held to account by the Regional Assembly, be able to be almost wholly opaque for an indefinite period of time? Does this not make the task of the Assembly more difficult, perhaps even impossible?

Second, your answer goes against the grain of most candidates I have put this question to (including Tomb in the last election). Most candidates have expressed reluctance about having public discussion of applicants, for a variety of reasons: that there are concerns that genuine security issues may not be possible to discuss publicly; that discussing popular applicants will be more difficult for SC members to do candidly if they must do so publicly (and that SC members could be made targets of political attacks if they were to be candid); and that public discussion may be harmful to an applicant who SC members criticise as being untrustworthy or lacking experience. What is your view of the merits of these concerns? Beyond benefiting an applicant, do you think there is any wider benefit, whether the applicant is rejected or approved?

Click to expand...

I'll put this simply. The Security Council is an extremely important group. I don't need to keep saying this, everyone knows.

If an applicant cannot accept either the criticism that they might possibly recieve, or the reasons for their rejection, even if this said player is popular, then applying for the Security Council is not for them. As one of our most decorated and respected Security Councillors, Lord Ravenclaw, said recently: "Own your decisions, own your past, own your mistakes and your triumphs - this is something I have said for years." In terms of applications for the Security Council - this definitely applies to discussions and applications for the Council.

Public discussion should not be harmful - it should be constructive and helpful to the applicant. This is very different to sensitive security concerns and information pertaining to private security aspects of the region, however.

As Vice Delegate, I would encourage constructive, open-minded and reasonable discussion of all applicants, regardless of who they are. I would not - on the other hand - encourage the release of sensitive security information, as I have explained in my previous answer. This is not a discussion that the public eye should have access to, it is limited to the members of the SC and - in the interests of security and reassurance - should stay like that.

Whether an applicant meets the basic requirements and passes the security evaluations, however, is something the public could and should know. As I have said, there is a very fine line between genuine sensitive security issues and simple player validity discussions. The Security Council should be able to decide which of these things those discussions are, and whether releasing them to the public would be in the best interest of the region and the player they are discussing.

Click to expand...

If I may, there appears to concerns that you have not addressed.

The concern in relation to a popular applicant that Councillors will not want to risk a political firestorm if they criticise such an applicant and so will not bring forward criticism;and the linked concern that popular applicants may, in fact, take criticism badly and use their popularity against a Councillor and politicise the Council.

In relation to the public discussion/private security dichotomy you put, I am somewhat confused. Are you meaning that there will be a public and private portion of discussion of applicants or are you meaning that applications will be publicly discussed but that other security matters will be private? If the former, would this not risk confusion where the public discussion does not reflect the private discussion, leading to votes of the Council which are inexplicable in the context of the public discussion? If the latter, how would this function where some private security matter leads to concern over an applicant?

Finally, there appear to have been some questions missed, again:

"Beyond benefiting an applicant, do you think there is any wider benefit, whether the applicant is rejected or approved?"

"[W]hether you would support a procedure for disclosure more generally[?]"

I have a question for you specifically relating to your ticket with Tomb, if you don't mind.

As Raven said last election, a Court case against the sitting Delegate requires the Vice Delegate to do whatever he can to prevent a rogue Delegate, even if the Vice Delegate and Delegate are friends and trust each other outside of the duties of their office.

I note also Tomb's previous Delegacy and how it ended, though thankfully he stepped down gracefully when confronted with a Court case.

Since you're running on a ticket with Tomb, are you at all worried about an indictment / Court case against him? Are you especially worried that your inexperience and / or friendship with Tomb would interfere with your duties in such a case?

What, if any, conflicts of interests do you have?

Please tell me, in detail, how you would enforce the removal of the Delegate. Don't think of him as your friend and start thinking of him as someone who you are charged with removing. The Vice Delegate is elected opposite the Delegate for this exact purpose.

Kasch you have my trust

---

---

In response to Zyvetskistaahn:

---

If I may, I appreciate that the freedom of information provisions are presently limited to the government, that is rather the point of my question: whether they ought to be extended (or whether a Council specific version of the provisions should be introduced). Now, your conclusion seems to be that the answer is no.

Why should an organ of the region, which is notionally to be held to account by the Regional Assembly, be able to be almost wholly opaque for an indefinite period of time? Does this not make the task of the Assembly more difficult, perhaps even impossible?

Click to expand...

The Security Council plays one of the most important roles in the region - defending the Delegacy. If this means preventing the release of sensitive information, which may in turn damage this role, then so be it. It is the sacrifice that must be made in order to ensure that the Delegacy is secured.

The North Pacific has been through it before; the SC is there to ensure that it will never happen again. But because of how rare real security issues are, and often how easily dealt with they can be - there should be no immediate reason for the SC to share everything with the Regional Assembly.

It is not against the ideals of transparency to prioritize our regional security.

The concern in relation to a popular applicant that Councillors will not want to risk a political firestorm if they criticise such an applicant and so will not bring forward criticism;and the linked concern that popular applicants may, in fact, take criticism badly and use their popularity against a Councillor and politicise the Council.

Click to expand...

If a Councillor is fearful to bring forth a reality and a truth in which some popular applicant may not be happy with, then it says some things about the Councillor in question: 1) they don't take their position seriously enough to assess every applicant equally regardless of regional popularity and 2) they hold a bias position against the normal and not so popular applicants. In both cases, the Councillor in question should review their credibility to hold a position in such group.

If it is revenge on the Councillor from such an applicant that you mean, then there is serious reason for concern regarding the applicant. I'd never encourage this kind of behaviour and would gladly stand with and vehemently defend the Councillor, should their criticisms be valid and necessary.

In relation to the public discussion/private security dichotomy you put, I am somewhat confused. Are you meaning that there will be a public and private portion of discussion of applicants or are you meaning that applications will be publicly discussed but that other security matters will be private? If the former, would this not risk confusion where the public discussion does not reflect the private discussion, leading to votes of the Council which are inexplicable in the context of the public discussion? If the latter, how would this function where some private security matter leads to concern over an applicant?

Click to expand...

Security matters of which hold a much higher risk than others in terms of regional security, must be discussed and dealt with in a controlled and private environment. Matters which do not hold much risk can be shared with the Regional Assembly. Once a much riskier, difficult issue is resolved, the SC should be encouraged to explain that matter.

---

In response to Darcania:

---

I have a question for you specifically relating to your ticket with Tomb, if you don't mind.

As Raven said last election, a Court case against the sitting Delegate requires the Vice Delegate to do whatever he can to prevent a rogue Delegate, even if the Vice Delegate and Delegate are friends and trust each other outside of the duties of their office.

I note also Tomb's previous Delegacy and how it ended, though thankfully he stepped down gracefully when confronted with a Court case.

Since you're running on a ticket with Tomb, are you at all worried about an indictment / Court case against him? Are you especially worried that your inexperience and / or friendship with Tomb would interfere with your duties in such a case?

Click to expand...

I am not worried about either of these things. It doesn't matter how experienced or friendly I am with Tomb, the law is the law and I will always treat it as such. If a case comes up against him, I will look at the case and make an unbiased, reasoned and fair decision based on the evidence for and against.

---

In response to Praetor:

---

What, if any, conflicts of interests do you have?

Click to expand...

I hold citizenship in Equinox and Spiritus. I am TNP Ambassador for The Land of Kings and Emperors, The Universal Allegiance and Albion. I am an associate of the Mafia Guild in Equinox, but am not active there at all. I do not consider any of these conflicts of interest, but they are worth mentioning for the sake of the question.

---

In response to Lord Ravenclaw:

---

Please tell me, in detail, how you would enforce the removal of the Delegate. Don't think of him as your friend and start thinking of him as someone who you are charged with removing. The Vice Delegate is elected opposite the Delegate for this exact purpose.

Click to expand...

The removal of the Delegate and the circumstances in which it would happen cannot be accurately predicted and would change depending on various conditions, so I'll provide my general plan of action for the removal of a rogue Delegate, should it actually happen next term.

In the case of a violent rogue Delegacy:

The Security Council and the Minister of Defense will be the first to be notified. This engages the two most efficient areas of the region in combatting the Delegate. The MoD will enact the Loss of Delegacy Contingency Plan and act accordingly, and the SC gathers more endorsements, builds influence and spreads the word. Once this is done, region-wide messages will be sent, informing and orderering WA nations to unendorse the Delegate. I'd contact the SC, the NPA, the RA and the rest of the region, keeping everyone updated, alert and available.

If I were ejected or banned, I'd request the protection of my citizenship and continue my effort against the rogue Delegate. If not, I'd continue as normal. After this, I'd begin campaigning and advocating for the unendorsement of the Delegate and the endorsement on my behalf. If this is successful, and I assume the role of acting legal Delegate, whoever is next in the line of succession and is available to serve, becomes the acting Vice Delegate.

Constant communication with the SC and the acting Vice Delegate will be established, ensuring that the situation is not escelated further. I would inform our closest allies and military partners and request their assistance and support in removing the rogue Delegate. Once the rogue Delegate has been removed and dealt with, a court trial will probably come to light. I'd contribute greatly towards such a case, and help to ensure that the perpetrator is punished appropriately.

Finally, I would serve as acting legal Delegate until a special election determines the next Delegate.

In the case of an illegal Delegacy (if they have broken any laws):

I would do exactly the same as for the violent delegacy case (unless the Delegate willingly stood down), then wait for charges to be brought against them and offer myself as a witness. I would serve as acting legal Delegate until a special election determines the next Delegate.

In the case of an inactive Delegacy:

I'd follow the same procedures as the violent delegacy case, but none of it would have the same urgency. An inactive delegate cannot do much harm, and a court trial wouldn't be needed. I would serve as acting legal Delegate until a special election determines the next Delegate.

The North Pacific is the hardest region to raid or coup in the entire game, and this is all down to the undying passion and committment we all have for regional security and stability. In the extremely rare off-chance that a coup does take place next term, I am more than confident in my ability to deal with it. Of course, anything can happen, so I will always be watching what the Delegate does and reacting as quickly as possible to any changes.

Thank you all for your questions, and I hope I can get your vote!

Thank you for your answers. I have further follow-ups.

If I may, I appreciate that the freedom of information provisions are presently limited to the government, that is rather the point of my question: whether they ought to be extended (or whether a Council specific version of the provisions should be introduced). Now, your conclusion seems to be that the answer is no.

Why should an organ of the region, which is notionally to be held to account by the Regional Assembly, be able to be almost wholly opaque for an indefinite period of time? Does this not make the task of the Assembly more difficult, perhaps even impossible?

Click to expand...

The Security Council plays one of the most important roles in the region - defending the Delegacy. If this means preventing the release of sensitive information, which may in turn damage this role, then so be it. It is the sacrifice that must be made in order to ensure that the Delegacy is secured.

The North Pacific has been through it before; the SC is there to ensure that it will never happen again. But because of how rare real security issues are, and often how easily dealt with they can be - there should be no immediate reason for the SC to share everything with the Regional Assembly.

It is not against the ideals of transparency to prioritize our regional security.

Click to expand...

If I may, how is the Assembly to ensure that the Security Council fulfills the tasks it is supposed to if the Assembly has no knowledge of the Security Council's activities? Does secrecy, indefinitely and in relation to nearly all things, not make any idea of accountability illusory? Further, how does such secrecy not compromise the notion of transparency?

[

quote]The concern in relation to a popular applicant that Councillors will not want to risk a political firestorm if they criticise such an applicant and so will not bring forward criticism;and the linked concern that popular applicants may, in fact, take criticism badly and use their popularity against a Councillor and politicise the Council.

Click to expand...

If a Councillor is fearful to bring forth a reality and a truth in which some popular applicant may not be happy with, then it says some things about the Councillor in question: 1) they don't take their position seriously enough to assess every applicant equally regardless of regional popularity and 2) they hold a bias position against the normal and not so popular applicants. In both cases, the Councillor in question should review their credibility to hold a position in such group.

If it is revenge on the Councillor from such an applicant that you mean, then there is serious reason for concern regarding the applicant. I'd never encourage this kind of behaviour and would gladly stand with and vehemently defend the Councillor, should their criticisms be valid and necessary.[/quote]

These are not my concerns, these are concerns which have been put forward by others who have been candidates for the Vice Delegacy: do you mean to suggest that Raven and Romanoffia, both long serving members of the Security Council, are not credible as members of the Council; further, they were concerns put forward by your own running mate, Tomb, do you not find him credible as Vice Delegate? Are they biased or lacking seriousness?

I am glad to hear that you would be vehement in your defence of Councillors and, I think, that these concerns are overblown, however, I find your rhetoric somewhat concerning.

In relation to the public discussion/private security dichotomy you put, I am somewhat confused. Are you meaning that there will be a public and private portion of discussion of applicants or are you meaning that applications will be publicly discussed but that other security matters will be private? If the former, would this not risk confusion where the public discussion does not reflect the private discussion, leading to votes of the Council which are inexplicable in the context of the public discussion? If the latter, how would this function where some private security matter leads to concern over an applicant?

Click to expand...

Security matters of which hold a much higher risk than others in terms of regional security, must be discussed and dealt with in a controlled and private environment. Matters which do not hold much risk can be shared with the Regional Assembly. Once a much riskier, difficult issue is resolved, the SC should be encouraged to explain that matter.

Click to expand...

If I may, I would ask for this answer to be expanded somewhat, as it doesn't seem to relate to the applications process, which the questions were really driving at.

If I may, how is the Assembly to ensure that the Security Council fulfills the tasks it is supposed to if the Assembly has no knowledge of the Security Council's activities? Does secrecy, indefinitely and in relation to nearly all things, not make any idea of accountability illusory? Further, how does such secrecy not compromise the notion of transparency?

Click to expand...

I am, in no way, an advocate for a lack of transparency. If the SC deems their discussions valid for public disclosure, then I will allow them to be released. But if a majority of the SC concludes that those discussion are too sensitive for public viewing, then I will support that decision. The SC knows the best for the region when it comes to security, so I will listen to them and trust their advice and their views on how discussion should be conducted.

These are not my concerns, these are concerns which have been put forward by others who have been candidates for the Vice Delegacy: do you mean to suggest that Raven and Romanoffia, both long serving members of the Security Council, are not credible as members of the Council; further, they were concerns put forward by your own running mate, Tomb, do you not find him credible as Vice Delegate? Are they biased or lacking seriousness?

Click to expand...

It depends on the applicant and the councillor in question. If someone within the most trusted, relied upon and respected group in the government, is too concerned to criticize a popular applicant in fear of retaliation, they should voice their concerns to the rest of the SC and the Regional Assembly. I cannot imagine how toxic and vindictive someone must be to exact revenge on someone based on a fair and just criticism of their character. I don't understand your concern in this situation. There is a clear problem when a Councillor cannot voice their opinion because of their concerns with the applicant.

I do not mean to suggest that Raven or Romanoffia are not credible, or that Tomb lacks seriousness - as I do not know exactly what concerns they had in their particular cases.

If I may, I would ask for this answer to be expanded somewhat, as it doesn't seem to relate to the applications process, which the questions were really driving at.

Click to expand...

For clarification, I mean the latter. Some security issues are too sensitive to release immediately, but normal applications can be discussed publically if the SC deems it necessary.

I still support you. I think you'll be a great VD.

Syrixia:

I still support you. I think you'll be a great VD.

Click to expand...

It genuinely warms my heart to know that I have maintained your support throughout this election despite all of the controversy and the doubt.

Through these experiences, I, and all of us, have learned some extremely valuable and enduring lessons, most - if not all - I intend to keep with me for the rest of my NS career.

Kasch:

Syrixia:

I still support you. I think you'll be a great VD.

Click to expand...

It genuinely warms my heart to know that I have maintained your support throughout this election despite all of the controversy and the doubt.

Through these experiences, I, and all of us, have learned some extremely valuable and enduring lessons, most - if not all - I intend to keep with me for the rest of my NS career.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. Do us proud, Kasch!