Darcania for Speaker of the Regional Assembly

Hello, all. I am Darcania, your current Attorney General, current Election Commissioner, and previous Minister of Defense. I stand before you now seeking the office of Speaker of the Regional Assembly, and hope to gain your vote if I haven't already.

While my jump from the Attorney General's office to the Speaker's office may seem sudden - and trust me, it was sudden to me too considering the fact that this is a Special Election - I eventually decided to run for Speaker after the serious issues I personally had seen with the office. While I hold no ill will toward any previous Speakers, and understand the pressures they were under, I was motivated to run to try and bring the office back to the stability, consistency, and activity I had previously seen under other Speakers.

Next, the obvious: Just like Pallaith when he first ran for this position, I have no direct experience as Speaker. While I do plan to appoint an experienced Deputy, I would like to point out that I am not running for this position completely blind: almost all of my current and previous positions have some aspects which should show my qualifications for the Speaker's office. You can see all of my current and previous positions in my signature, and for the sake of keeping this post short I will post the relevant details of my qualifications in a spoiler below.


As for any particular plans I have for the Speaker's office, I will state up front that I have no plans for anything particularly grand for this office. Instead, I have a simple set of goals I seek to achieve to bring the office back up to the standards I personally see that this office should meet: Stability, consistency, and activity.

I hope to keep the office stable, by appointing a dedicated team of Deputy Speakers to assist me, and actively elevating a Deputy to greater authority in the unlikely case that I will be unable to perform my duties for a period of time.

I hope to keep the office consistent, by personally overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Speaker's office, never letting any applicants wait for more than even a couple days for their Citizenship. By undertaking both the admin and the speaker check, the two checks which have historically caused the largest waits in processing Citizenship applications, the throughput for Citizenship should be higher than it has ever been, especially with an active Vice Delegate like Siwale (with whom I may or may not have an unofficial competition in our races to get to applicants with our checks first). In the same vein, Citizenship and Resident checks will be faster than ever.

I hope to keep the office active, by including both experienced and active Deputies to assist me in my work, and by reviving projects such as the RA Digest which have been left by the wayside. I myself will gain experience and knowledge in the office as fast as I can, especially with the head start due to my tangential qualifications, while setting a standard for my Deputies in activity in the office.

Thank you all for reading through my long speech for Speaker, and I hope I have convinced you to vote for me - for stability, consistency, and activity - for this vital Office, the Speaker of the Regional Assembly.

[me]

P.S. If you wish for a campaign button, the image at the top of this post should serve nicely, and is also a link. Just click it, copy the URL of the page that pops up, and place it in your signature surrounded by

Hello, I have a few questions and a number of scenarios which I would like you to address.

What role do you see the RA Digest as having? What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Around how many deputies would you expect to appoint and with what responsibilities?

Now, onto the scenarios. In essence, I would like you to explain, in relation to each scenario, what actions you would (or would not) take and why; most of them don't have a wrong answer, to my mind. (note, I may ask follow-up questions based on the responses)

1. A proposal has been put before the Assembly to amend the Constitution to remove elections for the office of Delegate and to name the member proposing the Bill as permanent Delegate. It is clear that the proposal does not enjoy support from other members. Nonetheless, the proposer has motioned for a vote on the proposal. Another member has motioned that the proposal be tabled (in the American sense, that is, that debate on it be ended and no further consideration given), this motion has been seconded by a number of members.

2. A proposal has been put before the Assembly to make significant changes to a number of areas of the Constitution and the Legal Code. It has been before the Assembly for less than a day and the proposer has motioned for a vote. Two other members have objected, saying that the proposal has not been before the Assembly for long enough to have had proper consideration.

3. A proposal has been put before the Assembly to make significant changes to the chapter of the Legal Code dealing with cultural declarations. A number of members disagree very strongly with the proposal and debate on it has been fractious and has necessitated some intervention by forum moderation. One of the members who opposes the proposal has introduced a proposal of their own, designed to mock the proposer of the changes and with several clearly unconstitutional provisions. There has been only limited reaction to this counter-proposal so far, but it has been highly negative and tended towards the sort of debate that had warranted intervention.

4. It is election season, the incumbent Delegate is running again and is being challenged by a newcomer with a groundswell of support, but it is clear that the result will be narrow as between them. During the voting period, you notice that a citizen's nation had ceased to exist shortly before voting began and refounded (and moved back to TNP) after the start of the voting period. Also, near the end of the period, the Delegate ejects their opponent, saying it is urgently necessary for the region's security.

5. There is an ongoing NPA operation occupying a region, the operation was disclosed to the Assembly. A motion has been put forward by a member opposed to the operation, the motion requires the NPA to cease its operation. The proposal has been made in a thread in the Regional Assembly sub-forum and the member has motioned for a vote. A number of other members have stated that if a vote is scheduled, they will object to it.

1. If you win, do you intend to run again in January for a full term? Does your answer change if you don't win?

2. Will you keep existing deputy speakers? Why or why not?

3. Scenario! There are 100 citizens, and voting has just closed on a bill that amends the constitution, legal code and the RA rules. 50 vote Aye, 20 vote nay, and 10 abstain. Does the bill pass? If so, at what point should each document be edited to reflect the bill's passage?

Hello, Zyvet. Glad to see your classic page of questions that candidates really have to think about.

Zyvetskistaahn:

What role do you see the RA Digest as having? What changes, if any, would you make to it?

Click to expand...

I see the RA Digest as helping to keep Citizens informed of goings-on in the RA, and to hopefully encourage them to partake. Most likely any changes I would have would be minor, such as moving Old Business down to the bottom and including links (well, URLs, since NS telegrams don't allow external links) to the relevant threads for each point of business. I would also likely continue including quotes, but place them closer to the top instead, and instead link to the Laws dispatch at the bottom (after all, the RA is the body that legislates on new laws, so may as well have that there to improve awareness of it and perhaps even drum up interest in potential changes from Citizens).

Zyvetskistaahn:

Around how many deputies would you expect to appoint and with what responsibilities?

Click to expand...

I intend to appoint up to two Deputies, one to train me in any areas that I need training in and another to take over or assist more directly, most likely by taking over RA business beyond Citizenship / Residency checks should I have lessened activity. These two hypothetical Deputies can be the same Deputy if that Deputy is willing to handle both, but I will seek to have two regardless, assuming they meet my standards and goals outlined in my campaign.

Zyvetskistaahn:

Now, onto the scenarios.

Click to expand...

Before I start, I'd like to note that at least a couple of these seem to follow scenarios which actually happened and which prompted Requests for Reviews from the Court - yes, I have gone through the Court Rulings page, and while I don't remember everything I do remember enough to notice that. So you'll most likely notice that my answers fall in line with these Court rulings, but it's still worth noting that these are still my answers; I simply agree with these prior rulings and have no major motivation of going against them.

1. I would refuse the motion to vote on the grounds that the proposed amendment lacks legality due to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights (specifically the clause regarding the three fundamental principles). If pressed, I can point to court ruling 39 (On the Use of the Speaker's Power to End Debate). In this scenario, I do not see any strong reason to close down debate entirely - indeed, the discussion could be useful for the proposer to learn about TNP law and the principles behind it. However, if the discussion itself also begins to get out of hand, like in scenario 3, I would shut down the thread similarly to my answer in scenario 3.
2. In this case, I think the rules / procedures for formal debate, vote scheduling, and objections to scheduling provide enough of a cushion for such a situation.
3. Oh, another situation I distinctly recognize from the Court Rulings. In this case, I would end debate on that second proposal immediately, no question, which does differ from how the Speaker at the time handled the situation that created the relevant Court ruling. It directly violates all the criteria outlined in ruling 39, and I have no intention of allowing the RA framework be used as a tool to bully another player.
4. If a Citizen is compliant with the requirements for Citizenship when I run the checks, then the Citizen is compliant. If I don't run the checks while the Citizen is CTE'd, but returns to compliance when I do run the checks, then they remain a Citizen. For this, like with previous answers, I point to previous instances, namely Court Ruling #40. For the second instance, as per Court Ruling #48, the ejected nation is still a Citizen. I'd be interested in perhaps suggesting that the affected nation or the Attorney General submit a Request for Review regarding that action, however, since the situation at its surface has questionable motivations and it would probably be best to have the Court oversee that and ensure that the affected nation was indeed a security threat.
5. As a non-legislative proposal, it would require a second motion before it would be scheduled for a vote. Should it get that motion, however, I would schedule a vote, and if enough people object to it then the schedule is cancelled. I'm not particularly seeing any catch or gotcha with this scenario, honestly.

---

Hello, COE, glad to see your questions as well, even if they aren't as lengthy as Zyvet's.

Crushing Our Enemies:

1. If you win, do you intend to run again in January for a full term? Does your answer change if you don't win?

Click to expand...

It all depends on what I want to see in the office. If I win and I fulfill my goals to my satisfaction, then I will run again. If I don't win and my opponent fulfills my goals anyway, then I will be satisfied.

Crushing Our Enemies:

2. Will you keep existing deputy speakers? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

• Crushing Our Enemies - Hey, COE, while you're here, would you be interested in a position as Deputy Speaker?
• Sanctaria - No. While he has served well and quickly helped out with the office when called upon, I have not seen enough initiative from him, within last term's Speaker's Office, to keep the stability, consistency, and activity that I want to see in any Deputies I appoint into this office. While Sanctaria is busy and dedicated, and I appreciate all the work he has done for TNP and NS in general, I want to have Deputies better able to focus on this office specifically, and while he was of great help when called on in the past term, I want to have Deputies that will have the time to focus more specifically on the tasks the Speaker's office requires.
• Zeek - No. I have not seen much, if any, activity from Zeek following their first several weeks in office.
• James Urquhart - No. He is still very new to the office, and while I would very much like having new people in government offices, for these two months at least I wish to work with a smaller, knowledgeable, dedicated team to restore the Speaker's office and bolster my knowledge in the area before I bring on fresher faces.

Crushing Our Enemies:

3. Scenario! There are 100 citizens, and voting has just closed on a bill that amends the constitution, legal code and the RA rules. 50 vote Aye, 20 vote nay, and 10 abstain. Does the bill pass? If so, at what point should each document be edited to reflect the bill's passage?

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. As it obtained all of a 2/3 majority, a majority, and a majority, respectively for all its separate parts, then the vote passes. If it had included an amendment to the Bill of Rights, the entire bill would have failed, as it did not gain a 3/4 majority. The legal documents would be edited after the Delegate signs the legal code portion of the bill, or fails to veto it within a week.

Darcania:

Hey, COE, while you're here, would you be interested in a position as Deputy Speaker?

Click to expand...

Sure!

Darcania:

Crushing Our Enemies:

3. Scenario! There are 100 citizens, and voting has just closed on a bill that amends the constitution, legal code and the RA rules. 50 vote Aye, 20 vote nay, and 10 abstain. Does the bill pass? If so, at what point should each document be edited to reflect the bill's passage?

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. As it obtained all of a 2/3 majority, a majority, and a majority, respectively for all its separate parts, then the vote passes. If it had included an amendment to the Bill of Rights, the entire bill would have failed, as it did not gain a 3/4 majority. The legal documents would be edited after the Delegate signs the legal code portion of the bill, or fails to veto it within a week.

Click to expand...

You have answered correctly, but you did not find the hidden bonus point.[note]The provision that requires omnibus bills to include a clause stating that no part takes effect unless all parts take effect is part of the standing procedures, and may be ignored at the Speaker's discretion.[/note] Your current score is 1.

Next Challenge! List all scenarios under which the legal code may be edited without an amendment to the legal code being passed.

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

Darcania:

2. In this case, I think the rules / procedures for formal debate, vote scheduling, and objections to scheduling provide enough of a cushion for such a situation.

Click to expand...

I would like some more elaboration on this point.

Darcania:

5. As a non-legislative proposal, it would require a second motion before it would be scheduled for a vote. Should it get that motion, however, I would schedule a vote, and if enough people object to it then the schedule is cancelled. I'm not particularly seeing any catch or gotcha with this scenario, honestly.

Click to expand...

What sort of length of time would you think appropriate between the motion and the vote?[/quote]

Darcania, thank you for taking the plunge and pursuing this office. It's important and it's tough to do. I would echo the fact your experience with admin checks is the best way to see how you would handle that aspect of the job. However, I am curious about your approach when it comes to training and preparing the office at large. You want them to be consistent, present, and on top of things, but that takes time and practice. Speakers in the past, including myself, have found training the new deputies to be the hardest part. Some people have a knack for it, others do not. The approach I tried, of course, was establishing a staff under the deputies so prospective deputies could learn the ropes before getting appointed. It's hard to just throw someone into a role that in practice mirrors everything the Speaker can do and expect them to figure it out. In some cases, this has led to unfortunate oversights and errors. What did you have in mind for training and preparing the deputies in the office, since it sounds like you will be starting with just one based on your previous answers?

Another thing I had hoped to see from the Speaker's office after my departure was further involvement by the Speaker's office in making it easier for newcomers to understand RA procedure and the legislative process in general, to hopefully encourage more legislative input from our citizenry. I figured this could be in the form of a workshop or an FAQ thread or something, building on existing material we had in past forum threads. Is this a project you think you would be willing to explore at some point, or at least agree should be something the office does in the future, should this brief half-term just be spent on getting things in order?

Finally, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on communication between the speaker's office and prospective citizens? Telegrams already go out when citizenship status is changed, but a lot of people fall through the cracks when the checks take a while, or they do not realize that they are missing a piece of information or further clarification was needed. Do you think the Speaker's office is doing all it can in this area, and the current setup is adequate, or could we be reaching out more effectively and directly to citizens? Would that make new prospective citizens more likely to make it all the way and stick around, or do you think it wouldn't change current retention rates and completed citizenship apps?

Crushing Our Enemies:

Sure!

Click to expand...

Most excellent.

Crushing Our Enemies:

You have answered correctly, but you did not find the hidden bonus point. Your current score is 1.

Click to expand...

I will make the convenient excuse that I have more intention of following and learning the standing procedures over changing and ignoring them.

Crushing Our Enemies:

Next Challenge! List all scenarios under which the legal code may be edited without an amendment to the legal code being passed.

Click to expand...

Honestly? I'm unsure. I recall a point where the Speaker could fix minor grammatical errors back in the day, but the Speaker can no longer do so. I know the Speaker can correct the numbering of clauses, but that usually occurs as a result of adding / removing clauses, which would be a result of an amendment. I'll have to yield on this one.

---

Zyvetskistaahn:

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

Click to expand...

I am overwhelmed with surprise.

Zyvetskistaahn:

I would like some more elaboration on this point.

Click to expand...

Certainly. I believe that the five days of formal debate, whereby the proposer may be debated with and any major errors could be found, would be enough time for the debaters to determine if they collectively agree whether the proposal is ready to go to vote or not. If not, then they can object to the scheduling of the vote when the Speaker schedules it.

As a small note, since I've forgotten to do so in my original answer, I would point out to those against the fast schedule the option of objecting to the scheduling of the vote, as well as the expected timetable during which they could object.

Zyvetskistaahn:

What sort of length of time would you think appropriate between the motion and the vote?

Click to expand...

Hard to say. Thanks for pointing out the catch to the scenario that I missed.

I would say, due to NPA operations generally not lasting more than a few days already, that the vote would be scheduled in two days, with the vote itself lasting for three days if the proposal gets there. This is lightning-fast for the RA, true, but very slow for NPA operations. There's always the option of citizens moving for an immediate vote, though.

This, generally, is a scenario that I would personally rather not see, honestly. I've thought on this before last time this issue came before the RA, and it's rather difficult for the RA to exercise this authority over the NPA, but I will absolutely do my best to facilitate the RA exercising this power should it come to that.

---

Pallaith:

Darcania, thank you for taking the plunge and pursuing this office. It's important and it's tough to do.

Click to expand...

One could say the same regarding my choice of becoming forum admin and Attorney General. I have a knack for taking the plunge, it seems.

Pallaith:

What did you have in mind for training and preparing the deputies in the office, since it sounds like you will be starting with just one based on your previous answers?

Click to expand...

I suppose that my approach would be simply to give those who are interested some "hands-off" training, whereby I would train them with theory and scenarios first before officially appointing them and giving them access to the tools they've been training for. Most likely I would train them in one area at a time, and let them get a grasp in that area before training them in another area. However, first I would have to learn all this myself.

Pallaith:

Is this a project you think you would be willing to explore at some point, or at least agree should be something the office does in the future, should this brief half-term just be spent on getting things in order?

Click to expand...

For this half-term, yes, my focus will be solely on learning the office and getting things in order. However, ever since I "inherited" the office of AG from Ash partway through his School of Law, I've always considered what can be done to improve knowledge and awareness of TNP law. Perhaps when I get settled in it would be a good idea to speak with the Minister of Culture, AG's office, and Court about it? I'd be interested in all of TNP's current legal minds putting our (yes, our, I'm one of them ) heads together to discuss it, at least.

Pallaith:

Finally, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on communication between the speaker's office and prospective citizens? Telegrams already go out when citizenship status is changed, but a lot of people fall through the cracks when the checks take a while, or they do not realize that they are missing a piece of information or further clarification was needed. Do you think the Speaker's office is doing all it can in this area, and the current setup is adequate, or could we be reaching out more effectively and directly to citizens? Would that make new prospective citizens more likely to make it all the way and stick around, or do you think it wouldn't change current retention rates and completed citizenship apps?

Click to expand...

Well, with Siwale and I running checks, the current setup should be at its maximum efficiency, so Citizens should see any problems with their application on the same day, and would let them enter into the TNP world almost immediately. If, however, there isn't a response regarding any errors within a few days, I think it would be a good idea to reach out to then with a telegram. After that it would fall to the Ministry of Home Affairs to pick up the fresh Citizen and handle full retention - after all, I wouldn't want to take over part of your government by myself, Mr. Delegate.

---

Finally, as a general note, my apologies for the time it took to reply - with recent events happening in NS, I've had to focus more on the administration side of things. I would like to note, however, that I have been keeping up on Citizen checks, etc. during the past couple days, and that this rare and high-priority instance is a good example of a time I would switch off more responsibility to an active Deputy while I focus on Citizenship / Residency and whatever is temporarily drawing me away.

Thanks all for the questions, and I hope I have your support.

Darcania:

Crushing Our Enemies:

Next Challenge! List all scenarios under which the legal code may be edited without an amendment to the legal code being passed.

Click to expand...

Honestly? I'm unsure. I recall a point where the Speaker could fix minor grammatical errors back in the day, but the Speaker can no longer do so. I know the Speaker can correct the numbering of clauses, but that usually occurs as a result of adding / removing clauses, which would be a result of an amendment. I'll have to yield on this one.

Click to expand...

You found 1 of 5 scenarios, which is not enough to earn a point. Your current score is 1. The clause numbers thing is correct. Even in an amendment was not just passed, you can fix clause numbers at any time, if you notice that they are wrong. Other possible answers are:

• Updating Chapter 1, Clause 4 when the RA has recognized a state of war (or recognizes a peace treaty, terms of surrender, or similar)
• Updating Section 1.1, Clause 4 when TNP gains or loses an ally
• Updating Chapter 1, Clause 9 when TNP agrees to prohibit espionage against a region (or repeals such an agreement)
• Removing portions of the Legal Code pursuant to a court order (which has happened on only two occasions)

Next challenge!

On February 1, 2018, Nation 1 applies for citizenship. The Speaker conditionally approves their application on February 2, pending checks by forum admin and the Vice Delegate. Nation 2 applies for citizenship on February 3, and never posts on the forum again. The forum admins approve both applications on February 3rd. Nation 1 ceases to exist on February 5. That same day, the Vice Delegate apologizes for falling behind on checks, notes that Nation 1 has CTE'd, and approves Nation 2. Around this time, the Speaker's Office has grown inactive, and no one from the office has checked citizenship applications or the rolls since February 2. The Speaker is eventually recalled on February 14th, and nominations to fill the vacant position open the following day. The voting period begins on February 22nd and concludes on the 27th. The new Speaker takes their oath on March 4th, and immediately checks the rolls.

Click to expand...

The challenge is four-fold, but if you answer all questions correctly, you will receive 2 points! First, did either nation gain citizenship, and if so, for how many days? Second, are either of them still citizens after the rolls are checked? Third, were either of them eligible to vote in the Speaker election? Were either of them eligible to run in the Speaker election?

Learn something new every day. Thanks, COE.

Crushing Our Enemies:

On February 1, 2018, Nation 1 applies for citizenship. The Speaker conditionally approves their application on February 2, pending checks by forum admin and the Vice Delegate. Nation 2 applies for citizenship on February 3, and never posts on the forum again. The forum admins approve both applications on February 3rd. Nation 1 ceases to exist on February 5. That same day, the Vice Delegate apologizes for falling behind on checks, notes that Nation 1 has CTE'd, and approves Nation 2. Around this time, the Speaker's Office has grown inactive, and no one from the office has checked citizenship applications or the rolls since February 2. The Speaker is eventually recalled on February 14th, and nominations to fill the vacant position open the following day. The voting period begins on February 22nd and concludes on the 27th. The new Speaker takes their oath on March 4th, and immediately checks the rolls.

Click to expand...

The challenge is four-fold, but if you answer all questions correctly, you will receive 2 points! First, did either nation gain citizenship, and if so, for how many days? Second, are either of them still citizens after the rolls are checked? Third, were either of them eligible to vote in the Speaker election? Were either of them eligible to run in the Speaker election?

Click to expand...

Ooh, a Citizenship question. This is my specialty.

Nation 1 gained Citizenship on Feb. 4th, due to the VD failing to check the applicant within 3 days. This nation never lost Citizenship due to the Speaker never removing it. Nation 1 is not eligible to run in the election due to not being a Citizen for the full 15 days before opening of candidacy declarations, but is eligible to vote since they are still a Citizen when voting opens. On March 4th they will lose Citizenship assuming they have not come back into compliance (revived and moved back in) by then, resulting in 28 days of Citizenship.

Click to expand...

Nation 2 gained Citizenship on Feb. 17th, due to the Speaker failing to check the applicant within 14 days. Same with Nation 1, this nation cannot run, but can vote in the election since they are a Citizen by the time voting opens. By March 4th, they have been a Citizen for 15 days, and will lose this Citizenship for not posting on the forum for over 30 days.

Click to expand...

Thanks for not delaying that Oath for just a few more days - I'd feel bad for those hypothetical ECs.

Darcania:

Crushing Our Enemies:

On February 1, 2018, Nation 1 applies for citizenship. The Speaker conditionally approves their application on February 2, pending checks by forum admin and the Vice Delegate. Nation 2 applies for citizenship on February 3, and never posts on the forum again. The forum admins approve both applications on February 3rd. Nation 1 ceases to exist on February 5. That same day, the Vice Delegate apologizes for falling behind on checks, notes that Nation 1 has CTE'd, and approves Nation 2. Around this time, the Speaker's Office has grown inactive, and no one from the office has checked citizenship applications or the rolls since February 2. The Speaker is eventually recalled on February 14th, and nominations to fill the vacant position open the following day. The voting period begins on February 22nd and concludes on the 27th. The new Speaker takes their oath on March 4th, and immediately checks the rolls.

Click to expand...

The challenge is four-fold, but if you answer all questions correctly, you will receive 2 points! First, did either nation gain citizenship, and if so, for how many days? Second, are either of them still citizens after the rolls are checked? Third, were either of them eligible to vote in the Speaker election? Were either of them eligible to run in the Speaker election?

Click to expand...

Ooh, a Citizenship question. This is my specialty.

Nation 1 gained Citizenship on Feb. 4th, due to the VD failing to check the applicant within 3 days. This nation never lost Citizenship due to the Speaker never removing it. Nation 1 is not eligible to run in the election due to not being a Citizen for the full 15 days before opening of candidacy declarations, but is eligible to vote since they are still a Citizen when voting opens. On March 4th they will lose Citizenship assuming they have not come back into compliance (revived and moved back in) by then, resulting in 28 days of Citizenship.

Click to expand...

Nation 2 gained Citizenship on Feb. 17th, due to the Speaker failing to check the applicant within 14 days. Same with Nation 1, this nation cannot run, but can vote in the election since they are a Citizen by the time voting opens. By March 4th, they have been a Citizen for 15 days, and will lose this Citizenship for not posting on the forum for over 30 days.

Click to expand...

Thanks for not delaying that Oath for just a few more days - I'd feel bad for those hypothetical ECs.

Click to expand...

So close! Your almost-perfect answer is enough to earn you one point, but not both! Your current score is 2.

Your answers to questions 3 and 4 were 100% correct. You are also correct about Nation 1's length of citizenship, and the dates that each nation became a citizen. However, there are only 29 days between February 3rd and March 4th, so Nation 2 is a still a citizen until the rolls are checked on March 6th or later! Your next challenge will come at a later date, when I'm not about to go to bed.

I blame the world's strange decision to make February far shorter than all other months for seemingly no reason.

Three/four scenarios:
1.
An applicant made the oath.
Admin check succeeds.
The Vice Delegate says "Security problems found. Rejected." after 2 days.
The Vice Delegate privately asks you not to hold a vote on them because they could not tell anyone why the application was denied, out of security reasons.
What do you do?

2a. The Vice Delegate check is passed after 1 day
After 4 days the forum adminstration says"Admin check failed.Reason: Their nation is not endorsing the delegate"
6 days after the application you see this.
What is your reaction?

2b. The Admin check is passed after 1 day
After 2 days the Vice Delegate says"VD check failed.Reason: Their nation is not endorsing the delegate"
6 days after the application you see this.
What is your reaction?

3.You have to take a break as Speaker, for 13 days.
When you come back you see that a vote(allowed by your deputy) has just finished(maximum length), with 55% citizienship support, with 1/3 of all citizens voting on it, on this proposal:
What is your reaction?

Clean Land:

1.
An applicant made the oath.
Admin check succeeds.
The Vice Delegate says "Security problems found. Rejected." after 2 days.
The Vice Delegate privately asks you not to hold a vote on them because they could not tell anyone why the application was denied, out of security reasons.
What do you do?

Click to expand...

I would remind the Vice Delegate that the law is quite clear on this, and remind them that both they and I are beholden to these laws as per our respective Oaths of Office. I would then post a debate thread if one had not been posted and schedule a vote as the law requires.

Clean Land:

2a. The Vice Delegate check is passed after 1 day
After 4 days the forum adminstration says"Admin check failed.Reason: Their nation is not endorsing the delegate"
6 days after the application you see this.
What is your reaction?

Click to expand...

I would hope that some kind soul would send me to the mental ward.

Clean Land:

2b. The Admin check is passed after 1 day
After 2 days the Vice Delegate says"VD check failed.Reason: Their nation is not endorsing the delegate"
6 days after the application you see this.
What is your reaction?

Click to expand...

I would have to apologize for not bringing the failed VD check to vote before the RA in time, as per the Legal Code's 6.1.7. I would then put up a debate thread, if one had not been put up already, where I would very much encourage the Vice Delegate to explain how this causes the applicant to be a security threat (and request the AG to keep a close eye on that thread), and put up a voting thread.

Clean Land:

3.You have to take a break as Speaker, for 13 days.
When you come back you see that a vote(allowed by your deputy) has just finished(maximum length), with 55% citizienship support, with 1/3 of all citizens voting on it, on this proposal:

Spoiler

1. The Speaker shall hold a vote on any proposal that is motioned to go to vote by 50% of all citizens.
2. The Speaker may not have any deputies.

What is your reaction?

Click to expand...

I would dismiss that Deputy and make an announcement that the proposal is illegal as it is, and apologize for that Deputy dropping the ball so badly. Then I would check to see what other damage that Deputy had done in their ignorance and irresponsibility.

I would dismiss that Deputy and make an announcement that the proposal is illegal as it is, and apologize for that Deputy dropping the ball so badly. Then I would check to see what other damage that Deputy had done in their ignorance and irresponsibility.

Click to expand...

You would surely make an announcement including why that proposal was illegal and expressing your regrets. Can you provide an example announcement?

I would have to apologize for not bringing the failed VD check to vote before the RA in time, as per the Legal Code's 6.1.7. I would then put up a debate thread, if one had not been put up already, where I would very much encourage the Vice Delegate to explain how this causes the applicant to be a security threat (and request the AG to keep a close eye on that thread), and put up a voting thread.

Click to expand...

Did you take provision 4 of the Bill of Rights into account?

As voting will soon open I wish you luck at the polls. ?

Clean Land:

You would surely make an announcement including why that proposal was illegal and expressing your regrets. Can you provide an example announcement?

Click to expand...

Yes, I would, as you could tell by my answer that you quoted. As for an example, there are so many things wrong with the proposal that it would likely take me around an hour to list them all and be as thorough as I would need to be, so if you insist on me providing an example it will have to wait until after work.

Clean Land:

Did you take provision 4 of the Bill of Rights into account?

Click to expand...

It is not my job to enforce government officials to follow the Bill of Rights. Well, currently it is, but it won't be if I'm elected Speaker. I doubt I would even have standing before the Court to pursue a request for review.

Darcania:

Clean Land:

You would surely make an announcement including why that proposal was illegal and expressing your regrets. Can you provide an example announcement?

Click to expand...

Yes, I would, as you could tell by my answer that you quoted. As for an example, there are so many things wrong with the proposal that it would likely take me around an hour to list them all and be as thorough as I would need to be, so if you insist on me providing an example it will have to wait until after work.

Clean Land:

Did you take provision 4 of the Bill of Rights into account?

Click to expand...

It is not my job to enforce government officials to follow the Bill of Rights. Well, currently it is, but it won't be if I'm elected Speaker. I doubt I would even have standing before the Court to pursue a request for review.

Click to expand...

As you have mentioned the Attorney General, yes ok.

It's ok.

And yes I want to see this list of things wrong with the proposal.

I have a few questions for you:

What brought you to pursue the office of speaker?

How do you plan to improve how the office functions?

What can you bring to this office that no one can else can bring?

abc, I've already answered all your questions in the OP. Is there a specific point in there that you'd like me to emphasize, clarify, or elaborate on?

Darcania:

abc, I've already answered all your questions in the OP. Is there a specific point in there that you'd like me to emphasize, clarify, or elaborate on?

Click to expand...

Do you plan to change the way RA Digests are sent out and in general; what they contain?

If you win, a special Attorney General election will be triggered. Who do you believe would serve best in this position?

abc:

Do you plan to change the way RA Digests are sent out and in general; what they contain?

Click to expand...

I've also already answered this in a previous post.

abc:

If you win, a special Attorney General election will be triggered. Who do you believe would serve best in this position?

Click to expand...

This question is not relevant to this campaign.

In other news....

Now both my checks, Speaker and admin, will be faster than ever, and you bet that I won't miss a thing if anyone tries to sneak something extra in the oath or subtly change the wording.

Wow, and I just memorized the oath! What a putz I was!

Crushing Our Enemies:

Wow, and I just memorized the oath! What a putz I was!

Click to expand...

When I get into the zone with coding I go a little overboard sometimes

Darcania:

Spoiler: A cool thing I coded just now

Original post on the left, diff markup on the right.

Click to expand...

That's right folks. I now offer my modeling services free of charge.