Goodness, I haven't even posted a campaign, yet, and already this thread is filling up!

(01-04-2019, 02:59 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(01-04-2019, 12:36 AM)The Sakhalinsk Empire Wrote:

(01-03-2019, 11:05 PM)Roavin Wrote:

(01-03-2019, 08:44 PM)The Sakhalinsk Empire Wrote: Considering you've been a Delegate for quite a while now, I suggest you let the newer nations try their bid. I've supported your Delegacy before, but it's 2019 and we should allow newer nations to try to run.

Erm, Seraph had only served one term. Tsunamy is the current Delegate.  

Oh yeah I forgot. But he's served for quite a long time in the government already and it would be nice to see a fresh face in the Delegacy. 

To jump in here, Seraph served ... one delegate term? And one term as MoRA? That doesn't seem excessive.

In the interests of strict accuracy, I have served three terms as MoRA, two of which consecutively, and apparently hold the record for longest-serving MoRA in recorded TSP history.

(01-03-2019, 10:34 PM)North Prarie Wrote:

• What is your opinion on the current debate between Sandaoguo and Kringle about whether a High Court justice should have a security background or not?
  
• As a legcomm member, do you believe that there should be more requirements for legislatorship, and/or do you believe the background check should be tougher on legislators? i.e, not allowing legislatorship to anyone who has ever been a citizen in, say, Balder or the Black Hawks?
  
• What do you believe is the most necessary approach to prompt gamesiders to vote forumside? 
  
•  Do you believe that evidence should be released publicly when an individual is banned or has their legislatorship status taken away? (Excluding situations like Yuno, Solorni, or 5-million population RMB spammers)
  

Apart from the question about gamesiders, I don't think these questions are terribly relevant to the delegacy, but I'll do my best to answer them anyway.

• I don't believe that a security background is necessary to be a High Court Justice. All that should matter is a strong ability to interpret the law fairly and consistently.
  
• I'm reasonably happy with our requirements as they stand at the moment. Whilst there might be some merit to preventing former members of hostile regions from joining, I'd be reluctant to deny those who have genuinely recanted in the process and fear it might be a step too far. Our current processes allow us to consider if anyone requesting Legislator status might be doing so in bad faith, which would cover those with such histories if we do not believe they have really moved on.
  
• Your use of the word 'necessary' is interesting. I think the best approach is to give them general information about what is going on in the forums and the Assembly, explain the advantages of joining the forums and of being a Legislator and then leave it up to them. If they do not wish to take part, that's fully their right, but they should at least know what it is they don't wish to be a part of.
  
• This would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Given how lenient we can be as a region, the majority of bannings will be either of the generic trolling/spamming kind, for which the evidence is usually already publicly available, or of the safeguarding or anti-harassment kind, for which the evidence may be sensitive and should not be shared without the express permission of those affected, if at all.