What Praetor SEEs

[Praetor]

I am keeping this short, simple, and sweet. Really. I promise. You don’t even need a TL;DR.

When I run for a position, I decide to run if I see a need for change and if I see myself being able enact that to change. Recently, what have I seen when it comes to the Vice Delegacy and the security of our region? We have had significant events happen which impact the aforementioned: the Citizenship amendment, the motion to recall a Security Councillor, the discussions around the Vice Delegacy checks, the ability to extend Border Control ability, and Cards. There are opportunities here for improvements (either legislatively or through programs) for the Vice Delegacy, I can bring these improvements.

In bringing changes about, it is important to not forget the improvements previously made and ensure the culture is continued: I will continue the precedent of the Vice Delegate’s Weekly Updates, processing citizenship checks at a reasonable pace, the WADP, etc. However, In the position of the Vice Delegacy, I can SEE areas for improvement and it is there where I can improve the office.

Security

We have recently had numerous applications for citizenships where members of the region have debated whether the applicant should fail the check of the Vice Delegate or not. It has been known the Security Council has a list of individuals which they recommend to be denied by the Vice Delegate. There is no enforcement of these recommendations. As such, there runs a risk of a Vice Delegate accepting, for whatever reason, an individual on the list with no recourse for the Security Council to protect the region. In the position, I will work with the Security Council and the Regional Assembly to propose legislation to eliminate this risk.

It is important to be proactive in seeking information about potential threats. Following up on the previous point, while I am unaware of all the information in the Security Council’s private forum, I will work to ensure a comprehensive list of individuals which pose a potential threat to the region are reviewed by the Security Council if not already and ensure they are added to the list. Similarly, on those individuals on the “list” I will endeavour to collect information on them for future Vice Delegates (provided this information is not already collated) in case they must deny an applicant.

Conditional on the above, the list of individuals which would be automatically denied would be publicized to the citizenry for informative purposes. Additionally, I have always been a fan of transparency. Given my previous position as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I recognize the need for privacy as well. It is a fine line to balance, yet I endeavour to walk it.

Engagement Gameside

In previous years, the gameside engagement of citizens and the government was atrociously low. I am pleased at where it is now and it is a startling improvement. I am thrilled at Nessuno’s membership in the Security Council given his activity on the RMB. I would like to build and improve on the Security Council participating gameside. RMB AMAs and TNP trivia are one way which this can be accomplished for each member of the Security Council. I plan to run recurring gameside activities (in collaboration with the Executive if possible) and provide resources for future Vice Delegates to do so should the activities prove successful. Lastly, I will promote casual participation on the RMB to Security Council members and track their participation to measure success.

Endorsement Levels

The cards program has significantly increased our WA numbers through both the lottery and the card giveaways. Given my enthusiasm for cards (as evidenced in the last General election), it is great to see the effects using them can have on the region. There are further opportunities to use cards to increase our endorsement levels from running more activities with Legendaries as prizes or finding other ways to get rid of The Northern Light’s giant stockpile of cards. I plan to explore the potential here fully.

If there are any questions or concerns, I would gladly address them. If there are any suggestions for additional ways to improve, I would gladly welcome them as well.

See? No TL;DR needed!

 

[Sil Dorsett]

No matter who wins, I hope all of us can join our ideas together for the betterment of the region. Best of luck to you!

I do have a question, however...

Conditional on the above, the list of individuals which would be automatically denied would be publicized to the citizenry for informative purposes.

Consider the possibility of low-level infiltrators with no history and no discoverable background. Should the list of those who would be automatically denied be made public, do you not feel that there's a considerable amount of risk that the list could be leaked? What would you consider to be the worst possible scenario if that should happen and what would you propose as a measure to mitigate it?

 

[Praetor]

No matter who wins, I hope all of us can join our ideas together for the betterment of the region. Best of luck to you!

I do have a question, however...

Consider the possibility of low-level infiltrators with no history and no discoverable background. Should the list of those who would be automatically denied be made public, do you not feel that there's a considerable amount of risk that the list could be leaked? What would you consider to be the worst possible scenario if that should happen and what would you propose as a measure to mitigate it?

Thank you! Regardless of the results of the election, I would like to see legislation on this aspect move forward (and would be willing to work with whoever is elected).

The possibility of infiltration of low-level infiltrators is quite real and not one I have seen a solution to. There is a risk for anything in our Private Halls to be leaked (as recently evidenced). Yet, we do not see constant leaks of our Private Halls (fortunately). So while a risk does exist, I don't think it will be exploited. If the list is leaked, I think the worst possible scenario is someone on that list creates a new name to apply for citizenship with. I should note that this risk already exists but if a list was to be publicized, the individual applying would no longer have to guess if they were on the list or not. Such a scenario would hopefully be countered by the administration team.

I will say I have been hesitant on this particular area and considering the potential ranges of disclosure, there should be a wider debate on the subject.

 

[Knightblood]

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

 

[Oracle]

Do you see an importance with coordinating with the Speaker in regards to your legislative ideas as Vice Delegate and prior to failing an application for citizenship?

How would you go about this?

 

[Praetor]

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

Depends. The Regional Assembly elects a Delegate and their vision for the region. I would want to respect that. If a special election is held as a result of ascending into the role, I doubt I would have a need to replace someone as Minister.

In the absence of a special election, I would have to run the region for a couple of weeks. I would most likely keep the existing Ministers. In a case of a Minister being unable to fulfill their duties, my priority would be looking at what projects are ongoing and how can they be continued. While I am typically a fan of encouraging newer members to the region to be Minister, in this case, I would probably go for someone more experienced.

I will not stand for the Delegacy in a special election nor after my term so fortunately, I will not have to make Cabinet picks with the long-term in mind.

Do you see an importance with coordinating with the Speaker in regards to your legislative ideas as Vice Delegate and prior to failing an application for citizenship?

How would you go about this?

Speaker and Vice Delegate is important as a lot of what the Vice Delegate does happens in areas where the Speaker is also working (the Regional Assembly and citizenship checks).

I would plan for communication whenever there is a change in the status quo. In cases of legislative changes, I do plan to consult with the Speaker where relevant. One particular detail comes to mind is if an individual on the list to be denied by the VD applies, is the application's Vice Delegacy denied by the Speaker or does the Speaker move it forward to the Vice Delegate to the deny it? Were I Speaker, I would appreciate knowing if anything significant were to happen. It may be necessary in some cases to maintain secrecy and in such cases (although not applicable were you to be Speaker as you are a member of the Security Council) it may not be possible to immediately inform the Speaker.

 

[BluieGamer]

What would be the things that you would like to be removed if you were to be elected VD?

Clarification: I've mostly read about things that you would like to add, and improvements to be made. However, what are things that you would like to be removed? In specific Ministries? In our laws? In the general workings in our government? Perhaps you would like to remove allies, or to prohibit interaction with specific groups? Maybe you would like to abolish the SC (though I hope not)? Anything about what Vice Delegates do that you might think is outdated and should be stopped?

 

[Praetor]

In my capacity as Vice Delegate, I would not seek to remove anything specific in our Ministries unless it is harmful to our region's security; in that case, I would confer with the Executive. I can't think of anything at the moment that fits the criteria. In our laws, at the moment, the exception established for Security Councillors should be looked at. I currently favour removing it and am working on legislation to that extent. At the moment, I don't believe there needs to be any allies removed, nor any interaction prohibited with specific groups (I am willing to listen to suggestions should there be any). I am definitely not in favour of abolishing the SC. I can't think of anything the Vice Delegates that is outdated and should be stopped.

I do think there is a need for change in the Security Council and the Vice Delegacy position—however, this is to do more, not less.

 

[BluieGamer]

Thoughts on this hastag?

#NPODidNothingWrong

 

[Praetor]

If we are talking about this election cycle, then yes. As far as I am aware the NPO did nothing wrong.

If we are talking about other events, well, suffice to say, you reap what you sow.

 

[Pallaith]

Praetor, since transparency is important to you, how far would you take it? The Security Council has long had private areas and conversations, and the debate over how much should become public has never ceased. You need to be transparent and honest, but you also need to walk that line you mentioned, and I hope to get a better sense for how you would do that.

If a list of people the SC recommends should be denied can be public, what would you consider to be so important it should remain classified?
How would you manage a scenario where there is increased public attention upon a matter before the Security Council and there are lots of individuals asking you what is going on, what the SC is thinking, who is on their side and who is not?
What strategies would you put in place to ensure that you are careful with the dissemination of private discussions?

Recently the VD has had to deal with a lot of scrutiny about applications. Your judgment is important in this role.

Do you have what it takes to confront a rogue delegate, even if it's a friend, someone you respect, get along with?
Could you do the same with a potential citizen applicant who is likely to be a security threat, but is perhaps popular or someone you personally are fine with?

You certainly gave me the impression that you see the Delegacy as a temporary thing and one you will do your best to do as little with out of respect for the prior elected Delegate. That's fine but it does make me wonder about your comfort with the role, especially given you presented quite the ambitious platform in the past.

If the challenge was thrust upon you, would you be up for it?
Do you have enough self-confidence and faith in yourself that you are prepared for that responsibility should the need arise?
And if so, why not run to hold on to the position in the subsequent special election?

And aside from standing SC recommendations, what criteria would you consider for potentially rejecting citizen applications?
Do you feel the 3 day period for the VD check is sufficient, or do you support the discussed effort to extend the length, or make the VD check conditional on the other checks?
Do you have a higher standard for activity in the SC than what is currently being enforced? Can we expect support for legislative changes or further recalls of SC members who fall below certain metrics?

 

[Praetor]

Praetor, since transparency is important to you, how far would you take it? The Security Council has long had private areas and conversations, and the debate over how much should become public has never ceased. You need to be transparent and honest, but you also need to walk that line you mentioned, and I hope to get a better sense for how you would do that.

I think one of the problems with the lack of transparency is there is a lack of transparency which is vaguely justified by security. It is a fine justification but it doesn't really nail down the issue. How is privacy directly needed for our security? As in, if this information was public, how could it be used to negatively affect our security? Can the reason for the privacy (for a more detailed level than just security) be made public? If so, we should do so. However, if we can't really drill down on the topic for why secrecy is so important a look should be taken at making it public. Consultations should be made with the SC on any steps towards publicizing anything and SCers should be able to control who sees their private statements.

It's possible some steps could be made towards greater transparency but not go the entire way. For example, could the SC publicize that there was a vote on having a standing recommendation to the VD to deny an individual citizenship, even if the individual is not disclosed? If so, perhaps we could disclose who voted on the topic but not how as to show SCers involvement in the SC.

I would like to reiterate I would not make these changes unilaterally but with discussing with the SC.

If a list of people the SC recommends should be denied can be public, what would you consider to be so important it should remain classified?
How would you manage a scenario where there is increased public attention upon a matter before the Security Council and there are lots of individuals asking you what is going on, what the SC is thinking, who is on their side and who is not?
What strategies would you put in place to ensure that you are careful with the dissemination of private discussions?

I'm actually not sure if it should be public. I do think there should be a discussion on the issue and a larger one than one happening in my campaign thread. There are pros and cons to both sides and we need to evaluate whether the pros outweigh the cons. I am not going to make this determination myself. It would be needed to have the input of others to gain more perspectives on the issue.

In cases of increased public attention to a matter towards the SC, I would not speak unless necessary. I would have three days to process citizenship checks (currently) and at the conclusion of conducting an investigation, I would be able to make a statement if necessary. Should I fail the individual, you would see a statement from the VD in the Private Halls. Should I pass the individual, I wouldn't see a need to make a statement, however, if inquired, I would present my decision making process (while respecting the Security Council Procedures).

The VD isn't a PR role. It's security. I wouldn't speak for SCers individually and I wouldn't share their discussions as per the Security Council Procedures—which I currently agree with.

Recently the VD has had to deal with a lot of scrutiny about applications. Your judgment is important in this role.

Do you have what it takes to confront a rogue delegate, even if it's a friend, someone you respect, get along with?
Could you do the same with a potential citizen applicant who is likely to be a security threat, but is perhaps popular or someone you personally are fine with?

Yes, yes, and yes. I think there are few people in the region at which I have not disagreed with at some point. As far as it goes with being concerned about rejecting a popular applicant, I am not involved in GP nor do I ever intend to be. If there is someone I am personally fine with, but the SC has objections to it, I would discuss the issue with them and defer as needed. As mentioned in my campaign, I do think it is a risk that our VD could accept someone who should be denied and has a standing recommendation from the SC and am hoping to close that loophole.

You certainly gave me the impression that you see the Delegacy as a temporary thing and one you will do your best to do as little with out of respect for the prior elected Delegate. That's fine but it does make me wonder about your comfort with the role, especially given you presented quite the ambitious platform in the past.

There wouldn't be a lot of time were I to be stepping into the Delegacy temporarily to make large changes. I would rather focus on ensuring continuing projects finish and not try to switch to implementing my vision which could be counterproductive given the short time period I would have.

If the challenge was thrust upon you, would you be up for it?
Do you have enough self-confidence and faith in yourself that you are prepared for that responsibility should the need arise?
And if so, why not run to hold on to the position in the subsequent special election?

Yes. Yes. My focus as Vice Delegate would be on improving the office and the Security Council. Not using the office as a stepping stone. In the event of a special election, should I stand for the Delegacy, I would be abandoning the platform and the changes I believe need to be made to the office without seeing them though.

And aside from standing SC recommendations, what criteria would you consider for potentially rejecting citizen applications?

Input from the SC first and foremost. Additionally, whether an individual may potentially be a danger to the region, their history with the region, their participation in other organizations, their statements on TNP and on joining the region, if any.

Do you feel the 3 day period for the VD check is sufficient, or do you support the discussed effort to extend the length, or make the VD check conditional on the other checks?

I lean towards being insufficient although I have not performed one yet. I do support extending the length and would prefer that over making the VD check conditional on other checks. We should not be rushing our Vice Delegate checks.

Do you have a higher standard for activity in the SC than what is currently being enforced? Can we expect support for legislative changes or further recalls of SC members who fall below certain metrics?

Yes, I do have a higher standard of activity as does the rest of the region as seen during the recall of Romanoffia prior to his resignation. Currently though, there are no legislative requirements in the area where Romanoffia was lacking. As previously mentioned, I think the exclusion of SCers from citizenship needs to be looked at. An area which has been discussed briefly about imposing a legislative requirement is having SCers endorse a minimum of WAs in the region. I would support taking a look at that as well but am not going to promise to take it on myself—I don't want to be overly ambitious and then under deliver. On recalls, I currently have no plans to recall any SCers. Generally speaking, I prefer the implementation of legislation to a recall where addressing inadequate legislation but am not opposed to a recall.