(12-06-2018, 11:29 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Apologies, for the lateness to this discussion, but seeing that these are up for a vote, I can't help but think this is important.

To the nominees — both of you were involved in the disaster that would become the Timscade fiasco and both of you had positions of power at the time. While I understand the entire event was stressful for all involved, this doesn't negate my expressed criticism that our elected leaders of the time passed the buck until the forum admins finally stepped in.

Similarly, the role of LegComm has the potential to face similar retaliatory issues when applications are not accepted.

As such, my general question is: What, if anything, have you taken away from the previous fiasco that would help with the LegComm appointment?

To Nakari, especially: What guarantee can you give the region that you won't quit amongst public criticism again?

Finally, to the cabinet: Can you verify that (1) you took these considerations into account, and (2) explain any relevant judgement calls made in this general direction?

Finally, I want to be clear that the above post should not be read to condone any of the actions during the debacle. However, this is something that will arise from time to time and I strongly feel our officials need to be prepared for it.

There are two main reasons that I did nothing overtly in response to "Timscade" when I was an elected official. The first is that I was delegate and I was not aware of any legal course of action I could have taken (especially, bearing in mind that the peak, when the need for action was undeniable, was after my term had ended anyway - and even then I could only have acted as a legislator or at the command of the cabinet, CRS, admins or Assembly). The second reason was that it was far too personal. I'll be the first to admit that I did not feel like I could trust my judgement where Escade was concerned and so my only sound course of action would have been to defer to the judgement of others. I would not have wanted to act against Escade purely on the basis of what was, at the time just my personal experience and, potentially, personal dislike. This held me back in my moderation role as well.

I cannot stress enough how much of a relief it was (despite genuine concern for others affected) to know how similar others were finding the entire debacle. Had I been more aware of that at the time, I'd likely have been more assertive, as I suspect, would those others.

Whilst such a situation is conceivable in the area LegComm operates, that is the benefit of LegComm being more than one person and also being in contact with other elected and appointed bodies.

I would also add that, in the end, "Timscade" was an OOC issue and so rightly fell to administration anyway, rather than elected officials. If the last year has taught me anything it's that we all need clear guidelines on when something is an OOC issue and what to do about it, because so often we look to our laws instead and feel helpless. Hopefully our moderation discussion will bear fruit in this regard.