Sil Dorsett for Vice Delegate, Once Again!

Malphe:

... Sil has done a stellar job, they've fulfilled every mandated duty effectively and I've been especially impressed by the handling of the activities in relation to NS cards. ...

Click to expand...

Aww... Thank you!

---

Greetings again! I'd ordinarily save you from the rundown of the litany of positions previously held and the promotion of past credentials. As the incumbent, I hope you know them already. But, if you're not sure or you're new, allow me the short, short version of it: four times (4x) Minister of World Assembly Affairs, one time (1x) Minister of Foreign Affairs, and now a one time (1x) Vice Delegate who successfully completed a term with Border Control powers and did not coup. If that doesn't say anything about trustworthiness, I don't know what would, and the Vice Delegacy is definitely one of those positions that requires a lot of trust to hold.

I have the experience of not only the position itself, but also that of a Security Councillor, the only one in the current field at the time of writing. I've always had the defense of the region govern my way of thinking, even before I was officially a Security Councillor, and even to the annoyance of some who thought I was watching them too closely once I was.

Now, let's have a look at my platform, revised to consider the experience I have gained in my first term.

Security Council Endorsements, to and from...
In the time that I've been Vice Delegate, the Security Council has increased the average number of endorsements held by previously veteran members by about 45, not counting myself and Pallaith. Newer members have had a more significant jump. Though we're not quite at the 60-65% benchmark that I set before, the top half of the Security Council is there, and most of those who aren't are newer members. Endorsements can take time to build, and it's a team effort to make it happen, with the Vice Delegate issuing regular promotional telegrams and dispatches to help drive the numbers up, and Security Councillors keeping on top of endotarting.

I've held the Security Council accountable for their endotarting efforts with my weekly updates which not only show endorsements received, but also endorsements given to the region. We've seen the result of what happens with it becomes painfully clear that a member is not performing as expected, and I have no issue with continuing with this into the next term.

Regional Endorsements and Beyond: More Incentives
A recent survey held by Home Affairs, with some added questions of my own regarding the motivation of nations to join the World Assembly, revealed that most nations joined the WA for the roleplaying experience in debating and voting on global legislation. For the hardcore NatSov RPers in that category, there's not much we can do, but there's plenty of opportunities to reach out to those who aren't so strict in that respect. With the guidance of Pallaith and the technical skills of r3naissanc3r, TNP now has the Card Lottery program to encourage those to join the World Assembly, become Keepers of the North by endorsing the Delegate and the Security Council, and most recently to endorse everyone. I want to expand that program if it's technically feasible, such as incentives for maintaining citizenship and executive staff membership, while still mandating KotN membership. While these are still just ideas, I want you to have confidence that I'll be on the lookout for new ways to boost involvement in our community in whatever ways the Security Council and the Vice Delegate can influence.

Citizenship Checks: Protecting our People

Me - 4 months ago:

I don't believe any check should be treated as just running through the motions.

Click to expand...

Well, I think I've certainly proven that. I failed someone's application this term and the Regional Assembly upheld it. How often does that happen in modern times? "But wait! You passed these other guys!" you might say. Yes, but after consultation and review of precedent, including past Vice Delegate checks for some applicants. As I said before...

"Being a member of the Security Council, I believe, provides an advantage in making sure the checks are comprehensive and not just running through the motions, as I'm already familiar with current notices and recommendations. I am very thorough, and I am not afraid to ask for a second look if something doesn't feel right. The Four Eyes Principle applies very much to regional security."

Click to expand...

Nothing has changed there, and any Security Councillor can tell you that I have consulted with them as mandated, and even for cases of what were obvious passes for them if I wasn't perfectly sure of it. Nothing has changed about the three-day limit, although I've proposed raising it to a maximum of seven days to allow for a better watch on what happens with the Speaker's check. I fully support the ability of the Vice Delegate to use all that time if it means a more thorough and thought-out examination. I hope to have earned your trust in that regard.


I hope I can count on your support once again! Feel free to ask me questions, and also check my previous campaign thread here -> https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9189719/, and my Security Council admission debate thread here -> http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9128992/ just in case I already answered your question. The content in both of those threads is still relevant and still what I want to pursue. But, even I did, ask it again. I've learned a lot in this past term, and that knowledge could help flesh out out a new idea, so have at it!

Thanks,
Sil Dorsett
Incumbent Vice-Delegate

I am very pleased to see you standing for Vice Delegate again. Having worked closely with you both in the past and currently and looking at this comprehensive campaign, I am pleased to say that I absolutely support your reelection.

You have proven yourself to be a dedicated worker in each and every position that you have occupied. You have not let The North Pacific down in any of your various cabinet roles or as our Vice Delegate. You have done an excellent job managing the day to day responsibilities of being Vice Delegate, as well as provided a transparent insight into how the Security Council is doing with the regular reports that you release.

I am convinced that you are a shining example of an individual who works quietly and diligently to check off their goals and accomplishments, without unnecessary fanfare or the need to seek acclaim or fame for your contributions. I believe that you simply desire to improve the region and it's institutions and to make sure The North Pacific remains as secure as it can be.

You've handled a number of challenging issues that have arisen during your term and this is proof of those traits that I describe above. A recall of a prominent and outspoken security councillor and blocking a citizenship application that you knew would be contentious. You have shown excellent leadership and judgement in this role and I am sure that you will continue to do so if you are re-elected.

You've got my support!

You also have my support!

How do you think that serving as Vice Delegate has changed your perspective on TNP security? Do you think differently about some things than you once would have?

What happened to retirement?

King SillyString:

How do you think that serving as Vice Delegate has changed your perspective on TNP security? Do you think differently about some things than you once would have?

Click to expand...

When I first started off as a security councillor, I was pretty basic, just keeping an eye on the numbers and pointing out when people were in danger levels. I didn't give much thought to the community trust aspect. In considering recent contentious applications or concerning endorsement levels, listening to the concerns of the community, combining it with the information already known by the Security Council and taking in the information the community had that I didn't have helped guide me to make informed decisions. That's not to say we shouldn't be ever-vigilant with the numbers, just that there's a bit of finesse around it. Like, don't shoot the .50 cal the moment someone crosses the first line, but keep a flare gun handy to scare them away from the second line.

Yalkan:

What happened to retirement?

Click to expand...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You have my full support Sil. It has been a pleasure working with you both as a Security Councillor and as Speaker. I hope to continue working together into the next term!

If for some reason you were required to step into the delegate's office, who would your cabinet picks be?

Knightblood:

If for some reason you were required to step into the delegate's office, who would your cabinet picks be?

Click to expand...

Ah, thought you could trick me, eh?

In the event of a delegacy emergency caused by the Delegate CTEing, voluntarily departing TNP, or resigning from the WA, the Vice Delegate need only hold the WA delegacy until a new Delegate is elected in a special election. (The office of the Delegate is Vacant while the Vice Delegate is only Absent. See LC 4.2.9 and 10) It would be pointless to choose a whole new cabinet only for it to be superseded by a brand new Delegate's own cabinet. The cabinet from the previously elected Delegate would remain, with vacancies filled on an as-needed basis from the pool of deputy ministers and staff members.

Foiled again! (I couldn't remember whether or not you got to pick new ministers so I decided to ask anyway)(also who actually takes time out of their day to read the legal code?)

Also, a better question to ask would be if you were to become delegate in the future who would your cabinet picks be?

(This edit function is great!)

Knightblood:

Also, a better question to ask would be if you were to become delegate in the future who would your cabinet picks be?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I would rather not answer that question directly. Reason being: I don't believe in buying votes off name recognition and name dropping.

That being said, my theoretical cabinet would consist of those who I felt were the most experienced in their respective ministry and have the leadership qualities necessary to be self-sufficient in managing their ministry. Self-sufficiency is a key aspect, as I want ministers who know what's best and can advise me rather than relying on me to micromanage them. That's not to say I want them to always tell me what to do, but I want them to be able to feed me with the information I need to make informed decisions, rather than standing around waiting for instructions like a robot.

Sil Dorsett:

I'm sorry, but I would rather not answer that question directly. Reason being: I don't believe in buying votes off name recognition and name dropping.

Click to expand...

You know, it's pretty hot outside where I am, so I appreciate the opportunity to cool off in all this shade!

Crushing Our Enemies:

You know, it's pretty hot outside where I am, so I appreciate the opportunity to cool off in all this shade!

Click to expand...

Please don't take that as a personal attack or a direct attack against anyone who's put out names for cabinet members in the past. I probably worded that horribly. A lot of people have done it and I understand why. People want to see if their picks are the right people for the job. My concern is whether someone would be more likely to vote for me if they knew they'd have a chance at being a minister, and that's not how I want to earn votes. I want to earn them off the platform I put out.

If you were in a one-on-one unrecorded voice chat with the delegate, and they told you outright that they were going to coup TNP (and you believed they were being honest, not joking), but you had no proof or documentation of this, what would you do?

Well now, I feel like I've been Kobayashi Marued here! This is a tough one!

No matter what the scenario is, a discussion with the members of the Security Council on private channels is in order (as in not on the forum and not on the TNPGen discord server [SC Procedures 7.2]), and excluding the supposed rogue if they are a member of the SC. Such a discussion would be a notification that a potential threat may exist and to prepare an action plan should the alleged rogue actually move forward with the implementation of their coup. The lack of evidence here I believe is irrelevant, as a plan should be made regardless. Contingency plans strengthen the overall security of the region, even if they take time to execute or are never executed at all. There's nothing wrong with establishing a plan. The only thing that is wrong is executing the plan before being legally entitled to do so.

However, the problem lies in timing, namely when the rogue delegate decides to launch their coup. If they are still legally entitled to the WA delegacy, then is it really a coup? Removal of Border Control powers from SCers isn't a coup, as the Legal Code only says that a delegate may assign Border Control powers to the first three SCers in the line of succession. It's not a requirement. In this situation, the SC would basically be waiting for the Attorney General (or the Vice Delegate or their successor if the AGORA bill passes) to find a reason to file criminal charges against the Delegate (like... banning the Vice Delegate from the region unilaterally? Treason?) and do so, and for the court to find them guilty and impose the punishment of removal from office [SEE EDIT] before the Security Council has the right to launch an unendorsement campaign to forcefully unseat the rogue.

The matter is much simpler if the rogue decides to act at the conclusion of their term and after losing re-election (or after being term-limited), as the Security Council has the right to campaign against them immediately.

Essentially, it's all about having a plan ready just-in-case, and implementing the plan if the conditions warrant it.

---

[EDIT]: ..., or for the regional assembly to recall the delegate,

Sil Dorsett:

now a one time (1x) Vice Delegate who successfully completed a term with Border Control powers and did not coup.

Click to expand...

You could just be biding your time

Joking aside, are there any reforms to the citizenship checks that you would like to enact? Are you seeking to establish some sort of guideline on who to accept and who to reject? Can you tell us what you believe the bare minimum that a Security Councillor should do maintain their status?

The biggest issue I have with the citizenship check right now is timing. The Vice Delegate has three days to do their check, and I've often wondered what the point of doing a check is when I know either the Speaker or Admin will fail them, like for their nation being outside of the region. Having the Vice Delegate check be the first check that times out, in my opinion, is a vulnerability in the process. I tried resolving that with a bill to rework the timing of the security check, but I only managed to jumble up the Legal Code so badly that I abandoned that thought and went with a simpler time extension that I still have yet to decide on whether it's a good idea to move forward with. I'd like to still implement my original plan of having the VD's security check be the last check in the process, but wording it properly is the issue.

As far as the minimum a Security Councillor should do, I think we've seen what the minimum really is. Romanoffia faced a recall because he wasn't endotarting and it was only our WADP efforts that propped him up. He was generally disconnected from the community, at least in my opinion. Yeah, he came back with a vengeance when he was under fire, but I haven't heard much from him since things cooled down. He's also at 78% endorsements given, below what I feel an SCer should be maintaining. My weekly endorsement reports have kept the SC accountable for their endotarting performance, and people have been getting twitchy when a councilor's endorsements given percentage drops below 80%. I'd personally like to see councilors maintain 85% given as a minimum, but perhaps a legal code mandate of 75% given would make sense to allow an SCer time to recover. I would, however, also support an exemption from that requirement like the SC can already implement with endorsement counts and influence levels when the correct conditions apply, like vacations and such. In regards to community engagement, we already have a requirement to check in with the forum every two weeks. That's required of every government official. But yet citizenship, maintained by posting on the RMB or Forum every 30 days, is not required. I would like to see that corrected, and require that SCers maintain citizenship. Generally, they do already, but I'd like to see it codified. I don't believe in mandating RMB posting to any frequency, as a lot of time messages get lost in the shuffle of Strangereal RP, but I would certainly encourage it.

You've done us proud and have put in solid work so far Sil. I have no doubt you could do it again, especially given you had some challenges this term that most Vice Delegates don't have to contend with. Since you're the incumbent I have a different set of questions that I'm interested in.

What lessons did you take from the Cormac citizenship debate, an how could you apply that going forward in the event additional applications go to a vote in the RA?
To what extent do you feel it is appropriate for the VD to respond to public inquiry on this matter, particularly if it comes from outside the region?
You have repeatedly stated in the past that you wouldn't seek the delegacy. In the event you had to assume the office, given your experience the past 4 month, do you feel you are better prepared to assume that office, and if so, would you seek it in the special election following?

In my view you have certainly earned another term as Vice Delegate, and given your wealth of experience and willingness to keep the work going, I would be proud to cast my vote for you again.

I'd say my takeaway from the Cormac event is that you need to trust yourself and your instincts. The Vice Delegate has the right to bring up a concern to the RA, and the RA will certainly let the VD know if the concern is valid or if it's too much of a stretch. We saw that not only with the Cormac rejection but also the overturning of Andrew's rejection. The VD doesn't display the black flag to disqualify someone; they just show the yellow flag to slow things down a bit.

I think what I would have done differently is not box myself into thinking of just the scenarios in which one could take the delegacy and coup. We have mechanisms to deal with that already; the Vice Delegate's security check is just one of them. I think it's pretty clear that the Regional Assembly considers an applicant's character as important to the process, as it feels that destabilizing behavior not necessarily involving a bold coup attempt is just as much a risk to the region as a coup. Twenty-two people other than myself liked McMasterdonia's post explaining this. That's rather significant, and a sign that presenting further details like this in a potential case is desired. It's also why I feel more time is often needed to gather enough information than what the law provides.

I think this also explains how I would handle inquiries from those in TNP: Investigate, and provide an opinion if doing so wouldn't present a security concern of its own. Regarding those outside of our region, I don't want to get into the habit of having to respond to every passing remark about an application from everyone in NationStates, but I'm not opposed to at least recording and/or looking into matters to determine if they are relevant to us either for the current application or in the future, say if an applicant loses citizenship down the road. I think it may be worth it for the Security Council to at least record these types of concerns, even if they don't lead to a formal recommendation.

As far as me and the Delegacy, I think whether or not I would run in a special election would have to do with how much time is left in the term. If say less than two months remained in the term, I would run. I think it makes sense in that case to do the best I can to close out the term and accomplish the prior delegate's goals knowing that I'd be giving a prospective two-term delegate the full eight months following the next normal election. I've spent a lot of time in the Executive Council chambers, and even if I haven't actually done the work that staffers have done, I'm at least aware of what's going on and what the expectations are. I'm sure I'd be fine.