(07-15-2018, 01:18 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: There are genuine conflicts of interests when somebody is Delegate here and doing God knows what throughout NationStates. The Delegate represents TSP, and all of their actions reflects upon the region and the office. Should the Delegate of TSP really be, for example, influencing TEP's foreign relations? How many hats can one person wear, before we start questioning loyalties or priorities? It's hard to know if somebody is advocating a foreign treaty based on TSP's interests or the other region they're involved in. But we should expect the Delegate of TSP to act always for the benefit of TSP. How much is that possible when they're spread across the game, acting on behalf of many different regions and organizations?

There's totally potential conflicts of interests. Voters should stay well-informed on that, and keep elected officials accountable. I'm not sure why we need an overreaching law on that, which will not only limit against the say 5% or so that could be taken issue with, but against the 95% or so that's literally just also hanging out elsewhere.

I would sure as hell hope that anybody elected Delegate would cut down on their activities elsewhere, especially politically-involved ones, and I sure as hell hope voters and citizens would actual speak up about it during campaigns or during terms if they saw issue with something. However, simply having basic citizenship, residency, or an apolitical position somewhere is not causing harm to anyone. This is a prime example of overlegislation, one that will do far more harm than good, and seems to be more driven by reactionary thoughts and personal biases than attentiveness to the actual impact this could have.

Yes, we should expect the Delegate of TSP to be acting in TSP's interests, but I think that this is something much more easily solved by setting expectations - which basically already exist - than pushing through a kneejerk amendment which will cause far more harm and headache than is worth.