Siwale for Vice Delegate

[Siwale]

Siwale for Vice Delegate - September 2017​

Hello! My name is Siwale and I am running for the office of Vice Delegate of The North Pacific! Below, you can learn more about my plan for this upcoming term, if elected.

Spoiler: Security Council

The Security Council is composed of some of the oldest and most experienced nations in The North Pacific. Naturally, nations such as these are ideal candidates to serve as Security Councilors since the wisdom they bring to the table is invaluable. However, their experience is of little use if they are not around to contribute.

A problem the Security Council has been having lately is a diminishing amount of activity among some of its members. A few members have left the council entirely to pursue other opportunities and others still sit on the council but do not participate as much as they once did. Activity is an important component to ALL branches of government. Security is no exception. To combat this problem, I plan to:

• Introduce legislation to the RA which brings Security Councilors to the same activity requirements as all other government officials. (In other words, requiring them to be Citizens)
  
• Collaborate with the Security Council to try and find active and experienced applicants

Spoiler: Endorsement Counts

It should be a serious challenge for a nation to surpass the endorsement counts of Security Councilors and even come close to the endorsement count of the Vice Delegate. However, multiple nations have done it over these past few months. This tells us that there is room for improvement. It is my goal to have all Security Councilors back at 800 endorsements and the Delegate at 1200 endorsements. To raise endorsement counts to these levels, I intend to:

• Release timely publications of the monthly WADP Awards.
  
• Reach out to nations on an individual level, educating them about the importance of endorsements and encouraging them to get involved in endotarting. (This will be a collaborative effort with HA who currently sends out manual telegrams to WA voters in an effort to get them to endotart)
  
• Ensure that all dispatches and automated telegrams pertaining to the WADP are up-to-date and are being utilized to their full potential.
  
• Promote endotarting on the Regional Message Board by setting a series of endorsement goals for the region.
  

Spoiler: Security Checks

We do not want the length of our citizenship application process scaring away nations looking to get involved. If all three parties stay on top of applications, interested nations can be participating in our Regional Assembly and elections in no time. Therefore, I will:

• Process applications on a daily basis and do my best to never be the check separating nations from citizenship.
  
• Introduce legislation to the Regional Assembly which allows a member of the Security Council to perform security checks in the absence of the Vice Delegate. (Currently, the legal code only allows for the Security Council to perform the duties specified in Chapter 5: Regional Security Law)

Spoiler: Campaign Badge

Feel free to add this badge to your signature if you support my campaign.

Designed by abc

I welcome any questions you might have and thank you for reading!

 

[Darcania]

You're brave to go against an incumbent as strong as Kasch, but you're also a strong candidate nonetheless, so I wish you the best of luck. Here's a few questions for you.

1. In what ways do you consider yourself to be a better choice than your opponent?
2. What do you believe you can improve in the Vice Delegate's office over the previous term?
3. Currently, you are the Minister of Home Affairs. Do you believe certain skills you've learned would help you in your term as Vice Delegate? How so?
4. Should you win this election, would you seek to be Minister of Home Affairs under the next Delegate? If not, would you still maintain an active presence in Home Affairs, or the rest of the Delegate's executive?
5. How knowledgeable would you say you are with laws concerning the Vice Delegate and the Security Council?

 

[Kaschovia]

Hey Siwale!

Your platform looks good and I am excited to go up against you this election!

As a rival candidate, I see your vision and I understand your ambition - but I need to ask you about a few things.

Introduce legislation to the RA which brings Security Councilors to the same activity requirements as all other government officials. (In other words, requiring them to be Citizens)

Do you acknowledge that the roles of other government positions are vastly different from that of a Security Councilor? Do you agree that the requirements to apply for the SC, let alone be accepted by the SC itself and confirmed by the Regional Assembly, are currently at an adequate level? Don't you think to require citizenship of our Security Councilors might be putting too much of a focus on forum side presence rather than putting a focus on where the SC matters the most; the game side?

Collaborate with the Security Council to try and find active and experienced applicants

Each Councilor may have a different view of what they perceive to an active and experienced applicant, so how do you plan to collaborate with them and why is it a goal of yours to find new applicants considering the current number of Councillors?

It should be a serious challenge for a nation to surpass the endorsement counts of Security Councilors and even come close to the endorsement count of the Vice Delegate. However, multiple nations have done it over these past few months. This tells us that there is room for improvement.

I can't lie, this part worries me slightly.

All this will do is beckon unknowing nations into receiving warnings for passing the legal endorsement limitations and thus will cause unnecessary work for yourself if elected. You cannot know for certain that this goal will be achieved while encouraging increased endorsements. I am all for the development of participation in the WA and endorsement trading, but to recognize room for improvement through what you call a 'serious challenge' for people to 'surpass the endorsement counts of Security Councilors' and 'come close to the endorsement count of the VD' is simply asking for trouble.

'...come close to the endorsement count of the Vice Delegate.' is not quite the same as '...more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level...' but I guess that depends on your definition of 'close'. I suspect you may have meant something else, so if you did, could you clarify?

Release timely publications of the monthly WADP Awards.

Reach out to nations on an individual level, educating them about the importance of endorsements and encouraging them to get involved in endotarting. (This will be a collaborative effort with HA who currently sends out manual telegrams to WA voters in an effort to get them to endotart)

Ensure that all dispatches and automated telegrams pertaining to the WADP are up-to-date and are being utilized to their full potential.

Promote endotarting on the Regional Message Board by setting a series of endorsement goals for the region.

#1 is great!

Isn't #2 already achieved by the work of r3naissanc3r through the WADP? What could your collaborative effort with Home Affairs do that the WADP doesn't already?

As for #3, r3naissanc3r that makes sure of that. The VD is the indirect messenger for the WADP awards and not the maintainer.

For #4, it is a nice idea but how can you be so sure that RMB posts alone will get us beyond our endorsement goals and why do you think this is a better way of doing it rather than telegrams, dispatches or regional events?

Introduce legislation to the Regional Assembly which allows a member of the Security Council to perform security checks in the absence of the Vice Delegate. (Currently, the legal code only allows for the Security Council to perform the duties specified in Chapter 5: Regional Security Law)

Doesn't Article 3, Clause 11 of the Constitution basically achieve the same thing? If you take 'assume the duties' as security checks, then it seems our current laws cover absences well enough.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I have a number of questions (some of which may be familiar to those who have been following my questions in previous elections and recent SC applications)

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)?

Would you take steps to allow some amount of disclosure, through exercise of the Security Council's rule making power, if legislation were not forthcoming (I should note, I appreciate that the Vice Delegate is but one voice among the several on the Council and that, therefore, it may well be your endeavour to take steps would be unsuccessful)?

In your estimation, would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council in order to provide for the disclosure of information require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?

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?

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?

 

[Siwale]

You're brave to go against an incumbent as strong as Kasch, but you're also a strong candidate nonetheless, so I wish you the best of luck. Here's a few questions for you.

1. In what ways do you consider yourself to be a better choice than your opponent?
2. What do you believe you can improve in the Vice Delegate's office over the previous term?
3. Currently, you are the Minister of Home Affairs. Do you believe certain skills you've learned would help you in your term as Vice Delegate? How so?
4. Should you win this election, would you seek to be Minister of Home Affairs under the next Delegate? If not, would you still maintain an active presence in Home Affairs, or the rest of the Delegate's executive?
5. How knowledgeable would you say you are with laws concerning the Vice Delegate and the Security Council?

Thank you for your questions Darc! Sorry I didn't get a chance to answer these sooner.

1. I'm a fresh set of eyes. I can see where the VD office has struggled over the past term and adopt a new approach to try and tackle these issues.

2. The biggest improvement I can make involves raising activity standard for the Security Council. The SC is responsible for retaking the Delegacy and maintaining our forum-based democracy in the event of a coup. How can this be done if some members of the SC are not very involved in the community in which they serve? Besides SC activity, I can improve endo counts of the Delegate and members of the Security Council. Even though our WA population has decreased over these past few months, there is no reason for the delegate to currently be under 1000 endorsements. This decreases our influence in the WA and our overall regional security.

3. Absolutely! I would say the biggest role of the Ministry of Home Affairs is to educate the residing nations in TNP. We help to make sure nations are aware of the opportunities available to them, address any misconceptions, and answer any questions they have. While the Vice Delegate isn't necessarily there to help nations join the forum, they still have a major role in educating our residents and citizens about the importance of endorsements and regional security. Besides my experience with educating nations, my current position has helped to develop my leadership skills since I was responsible for leading my staff. I have no doubt that these leadership skills will help me to work more effectively with members of the Security Council.

4. I would not seek to be Minister of Home Affairs if I was to win this election. I see no reason for it. There are enough talented individuals in TNP who would be willing to hold an office. Holding multiple offices only divides up your time and prevents you from performing at your best. Of course, I would still be an active executive staffer and provide assistance whenever necessary.

5. I do not consider myself to be an expert with the law. However, I know where to find the information I need and I have a general understanding of the laws concerning the Vice Delegate and the Security Council.

 

[Kaschovia]

I can see where the VD office has struggled over the past term

Care to clarify?

 

[Siwale]

Hey Siwale!

Your platform looks good and I am excited to go up against you this election!

As a rival candidate, I see your vision and I understand your ambition - but I need to ask you about a few things.

Hey Kasch! Wasn't expecting to see questions from my opponent, but I am more than happy to answer them. Good luck with your campaign!

Do you acknowledge that the roles of other government positions are vastly different from that of a Security Councilor? Do you agree that the requirements to apply for the SC, let alone be accepted by the SC itself and confirmed by the Regional Assembly, are currently at an adequate level? Don't you think to require citizenship of our Security Councilors might be putting too much of a focus on forum side presence rather than putting a focus on where the SC matters the most; the game side?

Every government position has its own unique role. When all of these roles are carried out, our government functions effectively. I have no problem with the current application process. My problem lies with the laws regulating activity levels after individuals are accepted into the SC. The SC is responsible for retaking the delegacy in the event of a coup AS WELL AS protecting democracy. Our government is located on the forum and is ultimately where the SC will need to play the biggest role in the event of a crisis. If members of the SC are not active on the forum now, how can we expect them to carry out their vital role?

Each Councilor may have a different view of what they perceive to an active and experienced applicant, so how do you plan to collaborate with them and why is it a goal of yours to find new applicants considering the current number of Councillors?

I plan to listen to what each Councilor is looking for in an applicant, see if we can reach an agreement on our required standards, and seek out individuals in our community who meet these standards. The goal is not necessarily to increase numbers. It is more about finding active members who can handle the responsibilities of the SC.

I can't lie, this part worries me slightly.

All this will do is beckon unknowing nations into receiving warnings for passing the legal endorsement limitations and thus will cause unnecessary work for yourself if elected. You cannot know for certain that this goal will be achieved while encouraging increased endorsements. I am all for the development of participation in the WA and endorsement trading, but to recognize room for improvement through what you call a 'serious challenge' for people to 'surpass the endorsement counts of Security Councilors' and 'come close to the endorsement count of the VD' is simply asking for trouble.

'...come close to the endorsement count of the Vice Delegate.' is not quite the same as '...more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate's required minimum endorsement count, or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level...' but I guess that depends on your definition of 'close'. I suspect you may have meant something else, so if you did, could you clarify?

I think you misunderstood this piece of my platform. I do not disapprove of nations getting a large number of endorsements. I simply want to increase the endorsement levels of the SC and Delegate to a point where it is not as easy for nations to surpass these levels. The top 10 endorsement spots should be filled mainly by the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, and the SC.

#1 is great!

Isn't #2 already achieved by the work of r3naissanc3r through the WADP? What could your collaborative effort with Home Affairs do that the WADP doesn't already?

As for #3, r3naissanc3r that makes sure of that. The VD is the indirect messenger for the WADP awards and not the maintainer.

For #4, it is a nice idea but how can you be so sure that RMB posts alone will get us beyond our endorsement goals and why do you think this is a better way of doing it rather than telegrams, dispatches or regional events?

The WADP is a fantastic program, but it is entirely automated. By collaborating with HA, we can take a more individualized approach through manual telegrams. This has proven to be an effective method in HA as it complements the automated TGs quite nicely.

While r3n is the maintainer of the WADP, I don't think he is opposed to new ideas. #3 is just saying that if I see a way to potentially improve the WADP, I will work with r3n to see what can be accomplished.

RMB posts are just an additional program. My main approach will be through individual TGs. You can never have too many programs.

Doesn't Article 3, Clause 11 of the Constitution basically achieve the same thing? If you take 'assume the duties' as security checks, then it seems our current laws cover absences well enough.

The fact remains that there is a discrepancy in the law. I want to make it clear that a member of the SC can perform security checks in the absence of the Vice Delegate.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

The WADP is automated *now* but it wasn't r3n can tell you about that journey.

 

[Kaschovia]

Every government position has its own unique role. When all of these roles are carried out, our government functions effectively. I have no problem with the current application process. My problem lies with the laws regulating activity levels after individuals are accepted into the SC. The SC is responsible for retaking the delegacy in the event of a coup AS WELL AS protecting democracy. Our government is located on the forum and is ultimately where the SC will need to play the biggest role in the event of a crisis. If members of the SC are not active on the forum now, how can we expect them to carry out their vital role?

Carrying out their vital role isn't a daily thing, Siwale. We haven't had a coup in years. I understand that the SC must remain active and present in the community, but they really are not needed on-site as often as you seem to believe. When they are needed, you can expect them to do their job. How often are they needed? Not that often.

I plan to listen to what each Councilor is looking for in an applicant, see if we can reach an agreement on our required standards, and seek out individuals in our community who meet these standards. The goal is not necessarily to increase numbers. It is more about finding active members who can handle the responsibilities of the SC.

I won't be disagreeing with you simply because you are a rival candidate, don't worry. I like this idea and I think the SC should have some more involvement in outreach to potential applicants. You may, however, end up spending more time trying to define what the SC determines a capable applicant rather than actually reaching out to them. How will you ensure that you won't spend too much time listening and too little time reaching out?

I think you misunderstood this piece of my platform. I do not disapprove of nations getting a large number of endorsements. I simply want to increase the endorsement levels of the SC and Delegate to a point where it is not as easy for nations to surpass these levels. The top 10 endorsement spots should be filled mainly by the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, and the SC.

I see now, thank you for clarifying!

The WADP is a fantastic program, but it is entirely automated. By collaborating with HA, we can take a more individualized approach through manual telegrams. This has proven to be an effective method in HA as it complements the automated TGs quite nicely.

The individualized approach seems rather silly, Siwale. TNP is the largest region in NationStates and your approach to increasing endorsement levels is to manually telegram? HA is not nearly the same as the WADP. The automation of the WADP is what makes it so effective and I think it will manage fine without this.

While r3n is the maintainer of the WADP, I don't think he is opposed to new ideas. #3 is just saying that if I see a way to potentially improve the WADP, I will work with r3n to see what can be accomplished.

That job could be done by everyone else. Making suggestions for improvements to the WADP isn't a VD-only thing. But regarding whether r3n is opposed to new ideas or not, you will have to ask him about that yourself.

RMB posts are just an additional program. My main approach will be through individual TGs. You can never have too many programs.

I strongly disagree. Having too many programs may both fog your priorities and delude your actual responsibilities as Vice Delegate.

The fact remains that there is a discrepancy in the law. I want to make it clear that a member of the SC can perform security checks in the absence of the Vice Delegate.

I could say that 'the first available person in the line of succession' is the same as 'a member of the SC', so I don't see how there is a discrepancy. It is already clear enough on who can do what when the VD cannot.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Just to clarify regarding the WADP and me:

1) I am not at all opposed to new ideas about the WADP. Quite the opposite, I strongly encourage them. This should be clear from the fact that I always try to get feedback and suggestions from the SC about new directions for the WADP.

2) I do not own the WADP. The fact that I maintain the technical backend it runs on does not mean I get final say on what changes happen to it. Final say about the WADP rests with the Delegate and the SC, and if they direct me to make a change I will implement it, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

 

[abc]

The fact remains that there is a discrepancy in the law. I want to make it clear that a member of the SC can perform security checks in the absence of the Vice Delegate.

I could say that 'the first available person in the line of succession' is the same as 'a member of the SC', so I don't see how there is a discrepancy. It is already clear enough on who can do what when the VD cannot.

Not that I don't support this idea of having the SC do security checks in the VD's absence, but I believe this is more of an RA thing that you could implement through a bill.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

While the forum is very important for the government, the Security Council (unlike say cabinet or judiciary positions) needs to be trusted and respected in game as the SC will ultimately be the ones who must mobilise the region in a coup. For this reason, some members are more active in-game than on the forum. Even if they are not on the forum every week they can still work with the rest of the SC and the government in the case of a crisis.

So some questions. Would your activity changes take into consideration in-game activity? Would you be involved in the onsite community - RMB etc as Vice Delegate? Do you have any initiatives or ideas you would implement to expand awareness onsite about the SC and what we do?

 

[Siwale]

I have a number of questions (some of which may be familiar to those who have been following my questions in previous elections and recent SC applications)

Hey Zyvet! Thank you for your 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?

I think it is acceptable to be involved on the executive staff level but not as a minister. The Vice Delegate serves as a check to the Delegate. Serving in the Delegate's cabinet, while at the same time serving as a check to their actions, can create potential conflicts. Plus, there is no real need to serve in two major government roles since there are plenty of excellent members in our community available to fill all of the positions. Not to mention, it splits up the Vice Delegate's time considerably.

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)?

I am all for making the SC as transparent as possible without jeopardizing regional security. The public should know what their government officials doing, even if some of the information needs to be censored for security purposes. I personally believe SC applicant discussions should not be private. The public should know the reasoning behind how members of the SC decide to vote. If anything, this can lead to more productive discussions once the application reaches the RA.

Would you take steps to allow some amount of disclosure, through exercise of the Security Council's rule making power, if legislation were not forthcoming (I should note, I appreciate that the Vice Delegate is but one voice among the several on the Council and that, therefore, it may well be your endeavour to take steps would be unsuccessful)?

I am in favor of promoting some amount of disclosure in the SC. There is no need for the SC to be as private as it currently is. Although, as you mentioned above, the VD is just one voice among several on the council. The most effective approach to allowing some disclosure will be through the RA.

In your estimation, would discussion of an amendment to the rules of the Council in order to provide for the disclosure of information require secrecy, considering the abstract nature of such a discussion?

I see no reason for that discussion to be private. However, I would probably need to have a private conversation with the SC first about making the discussion public.

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 number is about sufficient, the main issue is with activity amongst the members. Therefore, I would change the formal activity requirements for the Councillors. In terms of application requirements, a certain length of service as a government official should be required (not necessarily as VD or Delegate). By observing how an individual responds to challenges in their office, how they interact with others, and how they perform overall, we can make a decent prediction of how effective they would be as a member of the SC.

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?

The Security Council should have to re-nominate former SC members. Opinions of former Security Councilors could have drastically changed from the time of their initial applications. The SC should be evaluating things such as the individual's contributions during their time as a Security Councilor, the reasoning behind their initial resignation or removal, involvement in the community since their resignation, and ultimately whether the SC can still rely on this individual.

 

[Siwale]

Hello again Kasch. I hope these responses below address some of your concerns. Once again, good luck in your campaign!

Carrying out their vital role isn't a daily thing, Siwale. We haven't had a coup in years. I understand that the SC must remain active and present in the community, but they really are not needed on-site as often as you seem to believe. When they are needed, you can expect them to do their job. How often are they needed? Not that often.

The belief that the less active members of the SC will be there when we need them the most depends far too much on faith for me to be comfortable with. I personally find more comfort in putting my trust in members who maintain a regular presence on the forum and gameside communities. These are the individuals who are up-to-date with regional happenings, have a working relationship with the community, and are more likely to be successful in restoring democracy in the event of a crisis.

I won't be disagreeing with you simply because you are a rival candidate, don't worry. I like this idea and I think the SC should have some more involvement in outreach to potential applicants. You may, however, end up spending more time trying to define what the SC determines a capable applicant rather than actually reaching out to them. How will you ensure that you won't spend too much time listening and too little time reaching out?

As mentioned in my campaign platform, members of the SC are some of the most experienced players and their input is invaluable. If there are disagreements within the council over potential applicants, I will do my best to ensure all sides of the argument are heard. Having a good working relationship with the council is of extreme importance to me and I will spend as much time as necessarily listening to what each councilor has to say.

The individualized approach seems rather silly, Siwale. TNP is the largest region in NationStates and your approach to increasing endorsement levels is to manually telegram? HA is not nearly the same as the WADP. The automation of the WADP is what makes it so effective and I think it will manage fine without this.

Keep in mind that these TGs will only target the WA population which is about 1400 nations in TNP. While a large portion of the nations I send information to will not respond, it is my hope that they take a few seconds to read it. For the ones who do reach out to me, I am more than happy to educate them further. Every nation that we can reach out to and educate about the Regional Security is a success in my eyes.

That job could be done by everyone else. Making suggestions for improvements to the WADP isn't a VD-only thing. But regarding whether r3n is opposed to new ideas or not, you will have to ask him about that yourself.

Of course ideas could be submitted by anyone. The VD, however, is much more involved in the program than the average citizen. With this detailed involvement, the VD may identify potential areas of improvement that other citizens wouldn’t necessarily notice.

I strongly disagree. Having too many programs may both fog your priorities and delude your actual responsibilities as Vice Delegate.

My statement was not meant to be taken literally. My plan is not to create as many programs as I can think of, but instead, a few effective programs.

 

[Kaschovia]

The belief that the less active members of the SC will be there when we need them the most depends far too much on faith for me to be comfortable with. I personally find more comfort in putting my trust in members who maintain a regular presence on the forum and gameside communities. These are the individuals who are up-to-date with regional happenings, have a working relationship with the community, and are more likely to be successful in restoring democracy in the event of a crisis.

You'd be better off focusing more on what is important in your position rather than trying to get players who are perfectly capable of returning to activity when they are needed to get more active. You acknowledge that this group of people do not mess about, they know what they are doing, so you should trust that they'll be here when they're needed.

As mentioned in my campaign platform, members of the SC are some of the most experienced players and their input is invaluable. If there are disagreements within the council over potential applicants, I will do my best to ensure all sides of the argument are heard. Having a good working relationship with the council is of extreme importance to me and I will spend as much time as necessarily listening to what each councilor has to say.

I see it like this: reaching out to potential SCers is all good, but those who really have an interest in joining the SC will come to you and not the other way around. If you teach people about the SC instead of going straight for the applicant, you're potential applicant pool increases massively.

Keep in mind that these TGs will only target the WA population which is about 1400 nations in TNP. While a large portion of the nations I send information to will not respond, it is my hope that they take a few seconds to read it. For the ones who do reach out to me, I am more than happy to educate them further. Every nation that we can reach out to and educate about the Regional Security is a success in my eyes.

You'll be using stamps and templates though, right? Surely you won't be spending your time writing out individual messages to 1,400 different nations

Of course ideas could be submitted by anyone. The VD, however, is much more involved in the program than the average citizen. With this detailed involvement, the VD may identify potential areas of improvement that other citizens wouldn’t necessarily notice.

That depends on which 'average' citizen and which VD you're talking about.

My statement was not meant to be taken literally. My plan is not to create as many programs as I can think of, but instead, a few effective programs.

You can't describe them as effective if they don't even exist yet.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Perhaps there should be a VD debate?? This is getting interesting

 

[Pallaith]

Perhaps there should be a VD debate?? This is getting interesting

I think we're already watching it.

 

[Siwale]

While the forum is very important for the government, the Security Council (unlike say cabinet or judiciary positions) needs to be trusted and respected in game as the SC will ultimately be the ones who must mobilise the region in a coup. For this reason, some members are more active in-game than on the forum. Even if they are not on the forum every week they can still work with the rest of the SC and the government in the case of a crisis.

So some questions.

Hey McM! Thank you for your questions!

Would your activity changes take into consideration in-game activity?

Certainly, all Security Councilors should maintain an active gameside presence. This can be achieved through regularly exchanging endorsements, posting on the RMB, and posting on the gameside forum. I am in favor of incorporating gameside activity into the activity changes, but they would not serve as a substitution for forum activity. Both gameside and forum activity are vital. The forum is home to our government and is where the SC will need to play an important role in the case of a crisis.

Would you be involved in the onsite community - RMB etc as Vice Delegate?

As Vice Delegate, being involved in both the onsite community as well as the forum community will be a high priority for me. It would be quite hypocritical to not follow the stricter activity standards that I propose.

Do you have any initiatives or ideas you would implement to expand awareness onsite about the SC and what we do?

I think the WADP does an excellent job of promoting the SC. My main addition to this program would be a more one-on-one approach through manual telegramming. I have found this approach to complement our automated TG system quite nicely as MoHA and can definitely see it being applied to the SC as well.

 

[Flakey]

do you support the status quo?

 

[Siwale]

Hey Kasch!

You'd be better off focusing more on what is important in your position rather than trying to get players who are perfectly capable of returning to activity when they are needed to get more active. You acknowledge that this group of people do not mess about, they know what they are doing, so you should trust that they'll be here when they're needed.

It seems like we fundamentally disagree about the ongoing role of the Security Council in the government. It is my belief that an effective SC is not only active during times of crisis, but also during times of peace. Our community is constantly changing: New nations are being founded, new laws are being adopted, and new government officials with new ideas are taking office. A Security Councilor who only becomes active in times of crisis, which do not happen often, could be walking into a community largely foreign to them. By maintaining a working relationship with the community during times of peace, the SC forms stronger relationships, stays up to date on current events, and will ultimately be able to serve the community more effectively in times of crisis.

I see it like this: reaching out to potential SCers is all good, but those who really have an interest in joining the SC will come to you and not the other way around. If you teach people about the SC instead of going straight for the applicant, you're potential applicant pool increases massively.

I think we can both agree on the importance of educating the community about the SC. But regardless of how much we educate, qualified nations may still be too intimidated to apply without the SC reaching out to them. They may be interested in the position, but feel that their resume is not impressive enough be accepted by the SC. By extending a hand, we let them know that they are in fact qualified.

You'll be using stamps and templates though, right? Surely you won't be spending your time writing out individual messages to 1,400 different nations

No stamps required! Sending TGs manually to 1,400 nations really isn't as burdensome as it sounds. It is done quite often by some of our most effective endotarters. These TGs will be opening up a line of communication between the VD and the WA population. I do not consider the time I will be spending on these to be a waste.

That depends on which 'average' citizen and which VD you're talking about.

All VDs should be deeply involved in the WADP program. This program increases endorsement counts, influence, and ultimately strengthens regional security. I am guessing most citizens don't go as in depth into the program as the VD, but you never know.

 

[Darcania]

No stamps required! Sending TGs manually to 1,400 nations really isn't as burdensome as it sounds. It is done quite often by some of our most effective endotarters. These TGs will be opening up a line of communication between the VD and the WA population. I do not consider the time I will be spending on these to be a waste.

Just FYI, anyone with Communications authority (which I note the current VD has) can send a mass TG to all WA nations in TNP, no stamps or manual TGs required.

 

[Siwale]

do you support the status quo?

There are definitely some things I would like to change. Otherwise, I wouldn't be running for VD

Please read my campaign platform and answers to the questions above to get a better idea of what I mean.

 

[Siwale]

No stamps required! Sending TGs manually to 1,400 nations really isn't as burdensome as it sounds. It is done quite often by some of our most effective endotarters. These TGs will be opening up a line of communication between the VD and the WA population. I do not consider the time I will be spending on these to be a waste.

Just FYI, anyone with Communications authority (which I note the current VD has) can send a mass TG to all WA nations in TNP, no stamps or manual TGs required.

That is true. But mass TGs do not cast the same effect as a manual TGs. Mass TGs come across as less personal.

 

[Kaschovia]

It seems like we fundamentally disagree about the ongoing role of the Security Council in the government. It is my belief that an effective SC is not only active during times of crisis, but also during times of peace.

I'm not advocating for less security, I'm simply stating that our current SCers know more about what an effective SC is than someone who hasn't spent a single day working with them before.

Our community is constantly changing: New nations are being founded, new laws are being adopted, and new government officials with new ideas are taking office. A Security Councilor who only becomes active in times of crisis, which do not happen often, could be walking into a community largely foreign to them.

Believe it or not, but the current SC is actually very active. Sure, we have one or two SCers who are not that active in the game right now, but I know Romanoffia has had over a decade of experience working with the SC and Malvad has similar experience. They don't need a VD who pecks at them to get more active because they know what their job is and they know what needs to be done when it needs to be done.

By maintaining a working relationship with the community during times of peace, the SC forms stronger relationships, stays up to date on current events, and will ultimately be able to serve the community more effectively in times of crisis.

The in-game areas of the region shouldn't get too close to the SC, in my opinion. There are better ways to achieve communication between the two groups, but not so directly or closely. They are as good as they are in maintaining security because they can control their actions as they wish and not be pestered into activity by the Vice Delegate. The only way the Council would suffer from lack of activity would be if an overwhelming majority of Councilors were never active. This is not the case and won't be next term.

I think we can both agree on the importance of educating the community about the SC. But regardless of how much we educate, qualified nations may still be too intimidated to apply without the SC reaching out to them. They may be interested in the position, but feel that their resume is not impressive enough be accepted by the SC. By extending a hand, we let them know that they are in fact qualified.

Qualified applicants should not be held by the hand and waltzed into applying unless the SC has some serious member shortage (I'm talking less than 6 members). They should use the resources that are currently provided and will be provided next term to learn about the Council and apply of their own volition.

No stamps required! Sending TGs manually to 1,400 nations really isn't as burdensome as it sounds. It is done quite often by some of our most effective endotarters. These TGs will be opening up a line of communication between the VD and the WA population. I do not consider the time I will be spending on these to be a waste.

There are better ways to open up a line of communication than directly contacting every single WA nation in the region and hoping to find someone who is interested. How about making this the job of the entire WAA ministry instead of the job of the Vice Delegate? Or perhaps HA could work with WAA on it? This way you won't have to monitor 1,400 separate TGs hoping someone replies.

All VDs should be deeply involved in the WADP program. This program increases endorsement counts, influence, and ultimately strengthens regional security. I am guessing most citizens don't go as in depth into the program as the VD, but you never know.

What is the World Assembly Development Program Program?

And yeah, you never know.

I can see where the VD office has struggled over the past term

You're still yet to clarify this statement.

 

[Siwale]

I'm not advocating for less security, I'm simply stating that our current SCers know more about what an effective SC is than someone who hasn't spent a single day working with them before.

Believe it or not, but the current SC is actually very active. Sure, we have one or two SCers who are not that active in the game right now, but I know Romanoffia has had over a decade of experience working with the SC and Malvad has similar experience. They don't need a VD who pecks at them to get more active because they know what their job is and they know what needs to be done when it needs to be done.

The concern is not about whether the SC knows how to do their job. It is about if they will be around when a crisis occurs and if they will be able to effectively lead a community which they have not been actively engaged with.

The in-game areas of the region shouldn't get too close to the SC, in my opinion. There are better ways to achieve communication between the two groups, but not so directly or closely. They are as good as they are in maintaining security because they can control their actions as they wish and not be pestered into activity by the Vice Delegate. The only way the Council would suffer from lack of activity would be if an overwhelming majority of Councilors were never active. This is not the case and won't be next term.

We have very different views when it comes to SC involvement in the community. I think the community should get to know their Security Councilors, just as the SC should get to know the community. By forming a relationship between the two groups, the community is more likely to follow the SC in a time of crisis.

Qualified applicants should not be held by the hand and waltzed into applying unless the SC has some serious member shortage (I'm talking less than 6 members). They should use the resources that are currently provided and will be provided next term to learn about the Council and apply of their own volition.

These resources do not include the informal requirements, as these vary from Councilor to Councilor. A nation may meet the endorsement and influence requirements, but how do they know when they have proven themselves to be trustworthy in the eyes of the SC?

There are better ways to open up a line of communication than directly contacting every single WA nation in the region and hoping to find someone who is interested. How about making this the job of the entire WAA ministry instead of the job of the Vice Delegate? Or perhaps HA could work with WAA on it? This way you won't have to monitor 1,400 separate TGs hoping someone replies.

As I have stated in earlier posts, this effort will be done with the help of HA. I think HA is the ministry best suited for this line of work.

You're still yet to clarify this statement.

My campaign is not about criticizing the current VD, but rather about persuading TNP that I am the best choice for the job.

 

[Kaschovia]

The concern is not about whether the SC knows how to do their job. It is about if they will be around when a crisis occurs and if they will be able to effectively lead a community which they have not been actively engaged with.

SCers shouldn't have to be engaged in the community to be good at their jobs. There is no problem with observance from afar and engagement when appropriate. It isn't like there is some huge activity crisis going on.

We have very different views when it comes to SC involvement in the community. I think the community should get to know their Security Councilors, just as the SC should get to know the community. By forming a relationship between the two groups, the community is more likely to follow the SC in a time of crisis.

You think the SC really need to get to know this community? Why would they be on the Council in the first place if they didn't know enough about the region already? I think there are better ways for the community to get to know the SC, however.

These resources do not include the informal requirements, as these vary from Councilor to Councilor.

What informal requirements? The standard is in the law. The SCers use their judgment to assess the applicant and deem them worthy of nomination or not, it isn't a complex process.

A nation may meet the endorsement and influence requirements, but how do they know when they have proven themselves to be trustworthy in the eyes of the SC?

Trustworthiness is not the only quality that the SC looks for, but I would presume that the applicant would know if the SC thought they were trustworthy based on the outcome of their discussion and subsequent vote.

As I have stated in earlier posts, this effort will be done with the help of HA. I think HA is the ministry best suited for this line of work.

That is yet to be seen.

My campaign is not about criticizing the current VD, but rather about persuading TNP that I am the best choice for the job.

I would love to know where the current VD went wrong, though. If it isn't a problem.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Thank you for your answers, I have a number of 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?

I think it is acceptable to be involved on the executive staff level but not as a minister. The Vice Delegate serves as a check to the Delegate. Serving in the Delegate's cabinet, while at the same time serving as a check to their actions, can create potential conflicts. Plus, there is no real need to serve in two major government roles since there are plenty of excellent members in our community available to fill all of the positions. Not to mention, it splits up the Vice Delegate's time considerably.

Part of the role of the Vice Delegate, though thankfully not one which they are often called to fulfill, is to take the reins as Acting Delegate in the event that the Delegate resigns or is, for some reason, removed from office. They could, notionally, end up having to act in that capacity for over a month, were they to have to assume it at certain points in the term. Do you think that limited involvement in the Delegate's government might harm the Vice Delegate's preparedness for such a possibility? Is it a justifiable trade-off?

Do you consider yourself prepared to take up the role of Delegate if required?

Would you take steps to allow some amount of disclosure, through exercise of the Security Council's rule making power, if legislation were not forthcoming (I should note, I appreciate that the Vice Delegate is but one voice among the several on the Council and that, therefore, it may well be your endeavour to take steps would be unsuccessful)?

I am in favor of promoting some amount of disclosure in the SC. There is no need for the SC to be as private as it currently is. Although, as you mentioned above, the VD is just one voice among several on the council. The most effective approach to allowing some disclosure will be through the RA.

Why would going through the Assembly be more effective than utilising the rule-making power of the Council?

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 number is about sufficient, the main issue is with activity amongst the members. Therefore, I would change the formal activity requirements for the Councillors. In terms of application requirements, a certain length of service as a government official should be required (not necessarily as VD or Delegate). By observing how an individual responds to challenges in their office, how they interact with others, and how they perform overall, we can make a decent prediction of how effective they would be as a member of the SC.

To clarify, you think that a period of service as a government official ought to be a formal requirement or an informal one? How lengthy a term of service might be appropriate?

 

[Siwale]

Responses to Kasch:

SCers shouldn't have to be engaged in the community to be good at their jobs. There is no problem with observance from afar and engagement when appropriate. It isn't like there is some huge activity crisis going on.

As you stated above, there are currently 2 members of the SC that are relatively inactive. That number is a bit concerning, considering the size of the Council is currently 6.

You think the SC really need to get to know this community? Why would they be on the Council in the first place if they didn't know enough about the region already? I think there are better ways for the community to get to know the SC, however.

Our community is constantly changing. Nations come and go every day. A delegate from 10 years back is not necessarily going to be known by newer players. I think the Delegate Delirium event that is going on right now demonstrates that belief quite nicely.

What informal requirements? The standard is in the law. The SCers use their judgment to assess the applicant and deem them worthy of nomination or not, it isn't a complex process.

Trustworthiness is not the only quality that the SC looks for, but I would presume that the applicant would know if the SC thought they were trustworthy based on the outcome of their discussion and subsequent vote.

Informal requirements include things such as a nation’s age, length of time spent in government positions, whether they have held an elected office, etc. These beliefs vary between Councilors and you never really know how the vote will go until you apply. Some individuals may not want to apply to something if they think they will be rejected.

 

[Kaschovia]

As you stated above, there are currently 2 members of the SC that are relatively inactive. That number is a bit concerning, considering the size of the Council is currently 6.

They are not so inactive that it is a security concern. Romanoffia last logged in today and Malvad yesterday. I assume they prefer to observe and contribute when needed of them.

Our community is constantly changing. Nations come and go every day. A delegate from 10 years back is not necessarily going to be known by newer players. I think the Delegate Delirium event that is going on right now demonstrates that belief quite nicely.

This is not the case, however, for any member of the current SC roster.

Informal requirements include things such as a nation’s age, length of time spent in government positions, whether they have held an elected office, etc. These beliefs vary between Councilors and you never really know how the vote will go until you apply. Some individuals may not want to apply to something if they think they will be rejected.

SCers will always have their own standards and checklists for applicants that apply. It is all part of the process.

I can see where the VD office has struggled over the past term and adopt a new approach to try and tackle these issues.

May I ask where you believe there have been struggles and what issues do you believe need to be tackled? I've asked you to clarify your statement multiple times but it seems you do not want to elaborate and have ignored my most recent inquiry.

 

[Siwale]

Thank you for your questions Zyvet!

Part of the role of the Vice Delegate, though thankfully not one which they are often called to fulfill, is to take the reins as Acting Delegate in the event that the Delegate resigns or is, for some reason, removed from office. They could, notionally, end up having to act in that capacity for over a month, were they to have to assume it at certain points in the term. Do you think that limited involvement in the Delegate's government might harm the Vice Delegate's preparedness for such a possibility? Is it a justifiable trade-off?

Limited involvement may make the transition to Acting Delegate a little more difficult, but I think it is a justifiable trade-off to ensure the VD check is still in place. The VD could still remain in the Executive Staff to stay up-to-date on each ministry's goals and projects.

Do you consider yourself prepared to take up the role of Delegate if required?

I could take up the role of Delegate if required. I have served a term as Minister of Home Affairs. This has given me a chance to see how the executive branch functions and also demonstrate my leadership abilities. While there is still a lot to learn, I am confident that I could fill the role if needed.

Why would going through the Assembly be more effective than utilising the rule-making power of the Council?

Introducing this topic to the RA allows both the SC and citizens to have a say in this issue.

To clarify, you think that a period of service as a government official ought to be a formal requirement or an informal one? How lengthy a term of service might be appropriate?

While I would like to make the informal requirements more formalized so applicants know what to expect, it is definitely a challenge. It is a challenge because requirements such as length of service may vary based on the position the applicant has held. (For example, a term as Delegate is not equal to a term as Deputy Attorney General.) It will be a challenge, but I am willing to work with the SC to create more formalized requirements.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

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

What is your view on the exemption from Council nomination which those previously nominated to the Council enjoy? Do you think that the Council should consider revoking any of its previous nominations (that is, are there any previous nominees you specifically think ought to have their nominations revoked and do you think it should generally be part of the practice of the Council to review its previous nominees to discover if any particular nominee ought to have their nominations revoked)?

The Security Council should have to re-nominate former SC members. Opinions of former Security Councilors could have drastically changed from the time of their initial applications. The SC should be evaluating things such as the individual's contributions during their time as a Security Councilor, the reasoning behind their initial resignation or removal, involvement in the community since their resignation, and ultimately whether the SC can still rely on this individual.

Why is requiring the Council to renominate superior to the Council revoking nominations as needed?

Why would going through the Assembly be more effective than utilising the rule-making power of the Council?

Introducing this topic to the RA allows both the SC and citizens to have a say in this issue.

Are there any advantages to utilising the rule-making power over the Assembly's legislative power? What downsides to using the rule-making power (beyond that it limits the ability of citizens to contribute) are there?

Presuming that legislation was not forthcoming, for one reason or another, would you endeavour to encourage the Council to use its rule-making power?

To clarify, you think that a period of service as a government official ought to be a formal requirement or an informal one? How lengthy a term of service might be appropriate?

While I would like to make the informal requirements more formalized so applicants know what to expect, it is definitely a challenge. It is a challenge because requirements such as length of service may vary based on the position the applicant has held. (For example, a term as Delegate is not equal to a term as Deputy Attorney General.) It will be a challenge, but I am willing to work with the SC to create more formalized requirements.

How might you go about fomalising the informal requirements or making them more apparent to an applicant?

 

[Siwale]

Kasch,

They are not so inactive that it is a security concern. Romanoffia last logged in today and Malvad yesterday. I assume they prefer to observe and contribute when needed of them.

Activity for government officials should be determined by more than just logging into the forums weekly. They should be engaged in the community they serve.

This is not the case, however, for any member of the current SC roster.

With some of the councilors having very limited involvement with the community, I find it hard to believe that everyone knows all of the members of the SC. Especially in a region where new nations are constantly being founded.

May I ask where you believe there have been struggles and what issues do you believe need to be tackled? I've asked you to clarify your statement multiple times but it seems you do not want to elaborate and have ignored my most recent inquiry.

My platform highlights the issues I feel need to be addressed.

 

[Kaschovia]

Activity for government officials should be determined by more than just logging into the forums weekly. They should be engaged in the community they serve.

I refer back to the first point I made concerning this matter in that not all government officials work in the same way. Please don't let this go full circle.

With some of the councilors having very limited involvement with the community, I find it hard to believe that everyone knows all of the members of the SC. Especially in a region where new nations are constantly being founded.

I never said this. I simply meant that none of the current SCers have been gone for 10 years and have only recently returned.

My platform highlights the issues I feel need to be addressed.

Thank you for this clarification. Now I must make a case for my defense as you seem to think the issues with my term as VD are mentioned in your platform.

I couldn't help that I got elected shortly after several SC resignations. It wasn't my fault that the SC roster was diminishing. The numbers, however, have improved since the beginning of my term and three more applications may be on the way. Your concerns with the in-game activity of several SCers is also something I cannot help. I cannot peck at what you see as inactive councilors for them to pick up their activity. I believe they'll do their job when they need to and not when you demand they do.

As for endorsement counts, they naturally drop during summer months as NS gets less active. This trend has been seen in summer months for many years prior to the ones just gone. It is not an issue with the Vice Delegate.

It has been a very rare occasion that I have missed a security check or let the time for the check to lapse. Once again, no issues on my end.

Is there anything you can point to with factually-based evidence that supports what you believe to be the issues with my term as Vice Delegate? I am willing to defend my efforts in the position for as long as it takes you to tell me what you saw as the struggles and issues of my time in the position.

 

[Pallaith]

Siwale, working with the Security Council is obviously a key part of the job you are seeking. You have a lot to say and an idea of how to go about doing the job. But the Security Council might have other ideas. Are you prepared to compromise, especially considering the SC recently declined to submit your application to the RA for approval? One could say a major concern with your campaign is this potential adversarial relationship.

Through all of this, I don't think a simple question has been asked. Why do you want to be Vice Delegate? You're relatively new on the scene, talented no doubt, but why is this a job you feel you are suited for? I understand you have a different way of looking at this than Kasch does, but replacing a sitting Vice Delegate who seeks another term and hasn't done anything wrong or given us a reason to have no confidence in him is no small thing. I appreciate you are not going negative in this campaign, and I am not seeking a negative answer. But why you? What different things, what improvement do we get if we pick you?

 

[Siwale]

Kasch,

I refer back to the first point I made concerning this matter in that not all government officials work in the same way. Please don't let this go full circle.

I am sorry if it appears we are going in a circle. Just defending my argument

I never said this. I simply meant that none of the current SCers have been gone for 10 years and have only recently returned.

Thank you for the clarification!

Thank you for this clarification. Now I must make a case for my defense as you seem to think the issues with my term as VD are mentioned in your platform.

I couldn't help that I got elected shortly after several SC resignations. It wasn't my fault that the SC roster was diminishing. The numbers, however, have improved since the beginning of my term and three more applications may be on the way. Your concerns with the in-game activity of several SCers is also something I cannot help. I cannot peck at what you see as inactive councilors for them to pick up their activity. I believe they'll do their job when they need to and not when you demand they do.

As for endorsement counts, they naturally drop during summer months as NS gets less active. This trend has been seen in summer months for many years prior to the ones just gone. It is not an issue with the Vice Delegate.

It has been a very rare occasion that I have missed a security check or let the time for the check to lapse. Once again, no issues on my end.

Is there anything you can point to with factually-based evidence that supports what you believe to be the issues with my term as Vice Delegate? I am willing to defend my efforts in the position for as long as it takes you to tell me what you saw as the struggles and issues of my time in the position.

I'm afraid you misunderstood my answer to your question. My platform targets the issues the Security Branch of our government is experiencing and my plan of attack for improvement, if elected to serve as the head of this branch. The platform does not place blame on any particular individual, but instead the system as a whole. As I stated above, my campaign is not to attack the current VD. If you are seeking my feedback to your performance this term, I would be happy to discuss that with you privately once the elections have concluded.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I feel the need to interject a footnote here. The Vice Delegate chairs the SC, but as most former VDs can attest, that is different from being "the head of this branch."

Carry on. I'm really enjoying this.

 

[Siwale]

Pallaith,

Siwale, working with the Security Council is obviously a key part of the job you are seeking. You have a lot to say and an idea of how to go about doing the job. But the Security Council might have other ideas. Are you prepared to compromise, especially considering the SC recently declined to submit your application to the RA for approval? One could say a major concern with your campaign is this potential adversarial relationship.

Compromise is a lose-lose situation since neither party gets what they want. What I intend to do is collaborate with the SC. We all want the same thing, a continuously stable democracy. The issue arises with the steps we take to get there. As I have stated before, the Security Council is comprised of some of the most experienced nations in our region. The wisdom they bring to the table is invaluable and I would be a fool not to listen to them. I realize that I have not served as a SC and still have a lot to learn, but I have nothing but tremendous respect for the institution. At the same time, I hope that the SC will reciprocate a similar level of respect. I feel the issues I bring up are valid issues and, if elected, so does the majority of the voters. It is my hope that as we work to better understand one another, we can begin to identify solutions to current issues.

In regards to my SC application, if I was in the SC's shoes, I would have voted Nay as well. I was new to my first cabinet position when I applied and even debated submitting the application. I figured I had nothing to lose, as the SC was rather small in size, and may want the extra help. I have no hard feelings about the result of the vote.

Through all of this, I don't think a simple question has been asked. Why do you want to be Vice Delegate? You're relatively new on the scene, talented no doubt, but why is this a job you feel you are suited for? I understand you have a different way of looking at this than Kasch does, but replacing a sitting Vice Delegate who seeks another term and hasn't done anything wrong or given us a reason to have no confidence in him is no small thing. I appreciate you are not going negative in this campaign, and I am not seeking a negative answer. But why you? What different things, what improvement do we get if we pick you?

I am running for Vice Delegate because I feel this is the position in which I can be of greatest use for this upcoming term. While I lack experience in the Security Branch, I am confident that my previous performance as Minister of Home Affairs and Deputy Speaker are good examples of the type of work ethic you can expect from me. I truly believe in the issues I have pointed out and I will work tirelessly with the SC to come up with solutions.

In terms of why I am challenging the current VD, I think you sort of answered your own question. Our visions for the office and the SC drastically differ. If you have managed to read up to this point, I'm sure you can see that.

 

[Siwale]

Hey Zyvet! Sorry, I seemed to have missed these questions since we managed to post at the same time

Why is requiring the Council to renominate superior to the Council revoking nominations as needed?

Renominating requires the council to reassess all candidates and reaffirm their support. The SC is likely to avoid the process of revoking a candidate unless the circumstances are extreme.

Are there any advantages to utilising the rule-making power over the Assembly's legislative power? What downsides to using the rule-making power (beyond that it limits the ability of citizens to contribute) are there?

Presuming that legislation was not forthcoming, for one reason or another, would you endeavour to encourage the Council to use its rule-making power?

I think the answer to this question is dependent on the issue at hand. For the topic regarding disclosure of information, I feel the rule-making power is not appropriate. The citizens are the main advocates of a more transparent SC and should get a say in the final solution. At the same time, the SC knows what is best for regional security, and should also be heard. The RA seems like the most appropriate setting for this discussion and vote to take place

How might you go about fomalising the informal requirements or making them more apparent to an applicant?

As stated before, this is a challenge. The first place I would start is the SC. I would need to see if the Security Councilors can agree on standardizing any of the informal requirements they use when evaluating applicants such as time in the region, experience in specific government offices etc.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Are there any advantages to utilising the rule-making power over the Assembly's legislative power? What downsides to using the rule-making power (beyond that it limits the ability of citizens to contribute) are there?

Presuming that legislation was not forthcoming, for one reason or another, would you endeavour to encourage the Council to use its rule-making power?

I think the answer to this question is dependent on the issue at hand. For the topic regarding disclosure of information, I feel the rule-making power is not appropriate. The citizens are the main advocates of a more transparent SC and should get a say in the final solution. At the same time, the SC knows what is best for regional security, and should also be heard. The RA seems like the most appropriate setting for this discussion and vote to take place

If I may, it seems that you have not addressed the possibility of legislation on the topic of disclosure not being forthcoming.

How might you go about fomalising the informal requirements or making them more apparent to an applicant?

As stated before, this is a challenge. The first place I would start is the SC. I would need to see if the Security Councilors can agree on standardizing any of the informal requirements they use when evaluating applicants such as time in the region, experience in specific government offices etc.

Might there be any disbenefits to informal standards being made more formalised?

EDIT: Fixing quote tags.

 

[Pallaith]

Compromise is a lose-lose situation since neither party gets what they want. What I intend to do is collaborate with the SC. We all want the same thing, a continuously stable democracy. The issue arises with the steps we take to get there. As I have stated before, the Security Council is comprised of some of the most experienced nations in our region. The wisdom they bring to the table is invaluable and I would be a fool not to listen to them. I realize that I have not served as a SC and still have a lot to learn, but I have nothing but tremendous respect for the institution. At the same time, I hope that the SC will reciprocate a similar level of respect. I feel the issues I bring up are valid issues and, if elected, so does the majority of the voters. It is my hope that as we work to better understand one another, we can begin to identify solutions to current issues.

In regards to my SC application, if I was in the SC's shoes, I would have voted Nay as well. I was new to my first cabinet position when I applied and even debated submitting the application. I figured I had nothing to lose, as the SC was rather small in size, and may want the extra help. I have no hard feelings about the result of the vote.

I'm glad to hear that. Your vision is, to put a perhaps improper label on it, an activist one. Given the nature of the SC, they may decline to participate in many of the things you wish to do, or they may disagree and insist on another approach. This can be frustrating, and you may have to "go it alone." Are you prepared to do that? How much of your platform and goals are negotiable? Would you be willing to completely change course if you had to?

There is a lot of push and pull, potentially, between the Vice Delegate and the Security Council. You have to stake out your own claim, and leave your mark on the office while continuing traditions that outlast whole VD terms. The SC is conservative by nature, whereas your time may be much shorter in comparison to theirs. Being willing to compromise is good, necessary even, but it may make it harder for you to expand the office or find a way to make the Vice Delegacy relevant in new ways. I'm not even sure if there is an answer to this question, but how would you even do it? What's the strategy for setting your plans in motion, keeping in mind this institution has been in place a long time and change does not come easily or quickly?

Would you apply to the SC again? How would you say the intervening time has improved you as a potential SC candidate? Or maybe you still agree you should hold back for now?

I am running for Vice Delegate because I feel this is the position in which I can be of greatest use for this upcoming term. While I lack experience in the Security Branch, I am confident that my previous performance as Minister of Home Affairs and Deputy Speaker are good examples of the type of work ethic you can expect from me. I truly believe in the issues I have pointed out and I will work tirelessly with the SC to come up with solutions.

In terms of why I am challenging the current VD, I think you sort of answered your own question. Our visions for the office and the SC drastically differ. If you have managed to read up to this point, I'm sure you can see that.

Why wouldn't you be of use in another role? What if I asked you to stay on as Minister of Home Affairs? Why wouldn't you continue to be useful there?

I asked this of Kasch, but in what specific ways do you differ from Kasch? What are the issues or opinions that distinguish both of your respective campaigns? The argument has been kind of nitpicky at times and I think we're losing the fores for the trees. Define the race for us, what does it come down to?

And with all due respect, I don't believe you gave me a clear answer on why you specifically are better than a known quantity who knows the basics of the job and has proven himself capable of doing that job. As I said before, unseating an incumbent who is doing the job decently and by default has more experience than you takes something special.