Nasania-Vice Delegate 2017

[Nasania]

Security Efficiency, Order-Nasania VD 2017​

​

Greetings citizens of the region,

My name is Nasania and I first joined Nationstates November 06, 2013 as part of an extra-credit college project. TherRegion I was founded in was the north pacific, but I checked out other regions for a little while until deciding that TNP was the home for me by January 26, 2014. This region has the sense of Order and Stability I like and has a great history behind it that quite interested me.

Since that time period I have mainly been watching political events of the region(and Nationstates in general) over the years, and applying methodologies from game theory and semantics to analyze NationStates politics, developing various quizzes, and even successfully forecasting two general elections and an interregional conference. As for my political experience, I have served as the Ambassador to Europe, am a Lieutenant in the North Pacific Army, and have written articles for the Northern Lights.

My commitment to the region is already clear, and I would like to better serve TNP, as your Vice Delegate, insuring that the region processes citizenship applications as efficiently and securely as possible, maintaining the required endorsements in case the delegate goes rogue, and working with the Security Council and forum administration to prevent threats to Regional Security from getting anywhere near the Delegacy.

The regional community works as an organic unit, and just like any system, it requires a fuel to keep it alive. As part of that function I will promote the WADP and endorsement swapping by the security team(which includes the Security Council, the Delegate, and the Vice Delegate) to better secure the elected government in it's proper place, and thereby continuing the stability that my predecessors to the office have worked so long to build. My stance on the number of security councilors is that it stays at the current level, provided it does not adversely effect regional security-however I am not adverse to admitting more members to the Council provided they pass all the requirements of the post.

Regarding my activity level, I have been busy with some Real Life Concerns, but since that has largely been addressed over the past month, I believe I can attend to my Regional Duties with full commitment during this term.

Concerning communication, I always respond to any questions I am asked in a timely manner(especially on Discord), and will fully address whatever concerns you may have, or wish to have addressed.

One new thing I especially would like is increase cooperation with the all previous holders of the office of Vice Delegate, perhaps having a Vice Delegatorial Tea House or such, in which they can gather and discuss the duties of the office. This way new holders of the office can call upon the previous experience of past leaders, and as well spearhead a briefing during the changeover to insure a secure and stable transfer of power. It is imperative that the new Vice Delegate be fully prepared to assume their proper duties once elected and I believe this will be a way to achieve this goal.

Overall my platform can be summed up as follows: Security, Efficency, and Order!

I look forward to working with everyone and hope to receive your vote this election!

Spoiler: For Campaign Supporters

and Campaign Flag

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I have a number of questions, some of which may be familiar to people as they are variations of questions I have put to your opponent or are questions I have previously asked Vice Delegate candidates more generally.

You are not standing as part of a ticket (or you aren't yet, at least), so why is it better to elect you and a Delegate independently rather than a Delegate and Vice Delegate who are standing together as a ticket? Do you think that electing Delegates and Vice Delegates separately is generally better than electing them as a ticket?

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?

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?

 

[Nasania]

Thank you for your questions Zyvetskistaahn, here are my answers:

You are not standing as part of a ticket (or you aren't yet, at least), so why is it better to elect you and a Delegate independently rather than a Delegate and Vice Delegate who are standing together as a ticket? Do you think that electing Delegates and Vice Delegates separately is generally better than electing them as a ticket?

I personally prefer if candidates did independent tickets and I will be running as an independent, but I can see the rationale for running on a ticket...It would insure greater harmony in the government if elected as the ticket candidates already have a history of collaborating with each other. On the other hand, such could be problematic to regional security as it lessons a check against a rogue delegate as the VD could be a co-conspirator. I think the current consensus of TNP favors independent tickets because of that situation, though I have seen tickets do well in the past. If someone wishes to run as a ticket with someone else, they are free and full within their rights to do so.

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?

Hmm I think it be better if the positions are separate and detached, and other people fill the ministerial posts as needed. Though I must clarify, I am not averse to a Vice Delegate assuming a ministerial post if absolutely necessary...The purpose of the Vice Delegate is to serve as a check on the Delegate's power to some extent(among other things)-so I believe that a VD being a minister undermines that concept of Independence to some extent. In addition, the Vice Delegate has their current duties of security, citizenship checks etc. that they must focus on above all else, and being a minister may distract from those priorities somewhat.

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?

Public Discussion can be good, but I prefer private discussion so the Security Council can be more free for Security councillors to discuss the applicant's status, though I acknowledge an advantage of Public discussion is that it allows the applicant to see how they are progressing and get feedback, I think it is better if the SC discusses the application in private for security reasons, but keep the applicant well-informed all throughout the process.

Generally, ought the Security Council be subject to the freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law (or similar provisions)?

I think the Freedom of Information act is a good thing overall, but only so far as it doesn't jeopardize regional security. Regarding the Security Council, I think in General it is good if it applies, but I think some proper discretion must be allowed to the Government for what can be allowed to be released under such 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?

Yes I would be committed to working as per my duties to insure the government is in working order as smoothly as possible.

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?

I think the current number is good, The Security Council is part of what keeps our region secure and so I am not in favor of altering its functions in that regard-and it is ultimately the Regional assembly's prerogative to determine requirements of membership in the Security Council. That said, I believe that the requirements to be a security councillor should be fairly high as we can't trust simply anyone to be admitted, the region needs trusted, loyal, long-term citizens for the posts. The Current requirements seem suitable given the purpose of the Security Council. I would encourage only someone I can absolutely trust and has been in the region for a while and has no ties to problematic groups, in all likelihood I likely won't be encouraging people to join the Security Council.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

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

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?

Hmm I think it be better if the positions are separate and detached, and other people fill the ministerial posts as needed. Though I must clarify, I am not averse to a Vice Delegate assuming a ministerial post if absolutely necessary...The purpose of the Vice Delegate is to serve as a check on the Delegate's power to some extent(among other things)-so I believe that a VD being a minister undermines that concept of Independence to some extent. In addition, the Vice Delegate has their current duties of security, citizenship checks etc. that they must focus on above all else, and being a minister may distract from those priorities somewhat.

With this answer in mind, would you accept a Ministerial post, if offered, or apply for one, if there are applications?

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?

Public Discussion can be good, but I prefer private discussion so the Security Council can be more free for Security councillors to discuss the applicant's status, though I acknowledge an advantage of Public discussion is that it allows the applicant to see how they are progressing and get feedback, I think it is better if the SC discusses the application in private for security reasons, but keep the applicant well-informed all throughout the process.

Applications to join the Security Council are dealt with through a two-stage process: nomination (or lack thereof) by the Council; then a majority (or where there is no nomination, two-thirds majority) vote of the Assembly. Where the discussions of the Council are not known by the Assembly, how is it to form a meaningful judgement of the appropriateness of applicants?

Generally, ought the Security Council be subject to the freedom of information provisions in the Codified Law (or similar provisions)?

I think the Freedom of Information act is a good thing overall, but only so far as it doesn't jeopardize regional security. Regarding the Security Council, I think in General it is good if it applies, but I think some proper discretion must be allowed to the Government for what can be allowed to be released under such provisions.

I'm afraid I'm not able to discern as well as I would wish from your answer: do you support, in principle, the extension of the freedom of information provisions (or similar provisions) to the Security Council?

 

[Nasania]

With this answer in mind, would you accept a Ministerial post, if offered, or apply for one, if there are applications?

I'd accept only if there were no-one else for the position-in all other cases I would decline a ministerial post.

Where the discussions of the Council are not known by the Assembly, how is it to form a meaningful judgement of the appropriateness of applicants?

If I am not mistaken, those in the regional assembly include any and all citizens(and citizenship isn't too difficult to obtain) so some new ambitious people that want to score political points might see an opportunity to meddle in the affairs of the Security Council, if application discussions were public(especially if they are personal friends of the applicant in question). The Security Council is comprised of more reliable and trustworthy people and I believe it's important that SC's political independence is maintained. Private discussions mean the Security Council would not be subject to potential interferences/political pressures of Legislators and would give them more freedom to adequately assess an applicant's credentials.

do you support, in principle, the extension of the freedom of information provisions (or similar provisions) to the Security Council?

I am reticent about extending the provisions, but in principle I can support Freedom of Information for the Security Council-so long as regional security permits. If Freedom of Information conflicts with regional security-regional security wins out.

 

[Praetor]

You have my vote.

 

[Nasania]

You have my vote.

Thank You Praetor