We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Delegate Debate
#11

I feel that people are reading what I'm saying and understanding it as, "No, FA is elite and we don't need new players." When what I'm really saying is, "The old ways are irrelevant. We need new ways to get players involved. And we need to recognize that becoming educated in Gameplay politics isn't something everybody will want to or be able to do, so let's not expect to reproduce the GRs, Unibots, Onders, and Ravens of NS through guides and fellowships."

I think Hileville is offering a rosy picture that ultimately cannot be delivered, because he has no new ideas. People seem to be clinging to that because it's known and so it's safe. But are we going to learn our lesson if it fails, like history suggests it will? Or will a foreign service become embedded into MoFA until a new me comes to recognize reality and dismantle it?
#12

Glen, I think you are looking at it through a different lens. You are proposing a results-based strategy. A foreign service wasn't efficient, same with a foreign update, so you eliminated both. Hileville (and others) are proposing an objectives-based strategy. They believe that we need a distribution network (the foreign service), so whether it is 100% effective at drawing attention or not isn't that relevant as having one. Ultimately, it depends on what kind of outlook you have for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Personally, and being the last Minister to have fully staffed the foreign service and distributed updates throughout his whole term, I can say that being an ambassador is extremely unrewarding and offers you no actual experience in foreign affairs. So if someone thinks reviving ambassadors will help newcomers get involved, they can stop believing that right now. If they believe that a distribution network is needed anyways, then that's another matter, but I still don't think we need a whole bureaucracy to do something one or two people (a Minister and a Deputy) could do in a few minutes.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
#13

Just speaking on a personal level, ultimately why I voted for Hile is I felt like the foreign ministry has become removed from the region over your terms, both through lack of communication and regional participation.

I know your campaign addressed this, and I think this was a good campaign (honestly your best yet), but it's hard to support someone campaigning on a change from themselves.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
#14

(This might me more appropriate for my own campaign thread, but we're already here...)

I don't understand that critique, SB. MoFA has never been the most accessible to players or most directly visible. Raven staffed it with his friends. Before me, we had the terrible ambassador system under HEM and Hileville, that was terminally inactive and impossible to manage, despite the hard work they put in under it. I was an ambassador and a deputy under other MoFAs, and I was never trained or taught about Gameplay politics. I learned that myself.

So I can't help but feel that I'm being held to standards nobody else has ever been held to in the position. You might think FA is removed from the region because what I've done are things you disagree with. I think if I had acquiesced to Euro and the imperialists, and avoided making real change, you may not feel the way you do. (This isn't an attack on you, but rather an observation that people don't feel connected to those they disagree with.)

I've taken on deputies every term. And these have always been new players. In my first term, Horse was my deputy and we had a foreign service. In my second, I had multiple deputies over the term, each going on to run in another election. So this criticism that there hasn't been participation is, I think, false. I accept that I'm being punished for an inactive summer. There's nothing I can do about that-- I couldn't singlehandedly make NS active. And I accept that communication is an issue, though this term there was little to communicate about.

But I think the criticisms of my whole tenure as MoFA are wrong and unfair. I haven't been any less accessible than any of predecessors. I simply haven't given away useless jobs and titles. It makes me wonder if Hileville will be held to the same standards. Will we be saying the same things if his foreign service is inactive like all the past ones? Or will the goal posts change in 4 months? If I end up being right, based on all the evidence I've given for why his idea is bad, will we finally give up on this line of attack and criticism? I'm very skeptical. But I certainly will be keeping a close and critical eye on everything under Hileville's tenure.
#15

GR -- I don't want to you to take my comments personally. I actually don't disagree with you on ambassadorships. I did one way back when and it's dull and useless. I agree.

What I'm saying -- and what we've discussed previously -- is that we need *something* in the way of stepping stone. I think your WA activity could be a means to do so or something else that hasn't been fully fleshed out. That's not a personal criticism ... it's just one of the struggles we're still dealing with.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
#16

I don't disagree with a lot of that post, and I really don't want to get in a big argument over this, but I did want to explain my vote to you, because honestly, I feel I owe it to you, particularly because you ran the best campaign platform I didn't vote for.

Your platform is great, even the last weeks leading up to the campaign was you at your best. I like the new positions you added, I love the open input thread you've made. The problem in my mind, was you've had a term to make those changes, and they only happened immediately in advance of elections. I think both campaigns address the problems I see in FA in TSP right now, but as the incumbent, I do hold you to a higher standard.

I do want to say that I'm not accusing you of closing off our FA. I'm saying that our FA feels closed off right now, and I voted for the plan I believe addresses that issue best.

As far as what regions you've fostered relations with, as long as we are not pigeon hold by our military stance, I'm happy. I think you've upheld the general foreign spirit of TSP, and certainly did not personally hold it against you. If that was my concern, I wouldn't have even said anything here. I would have quietly voted, and voted RON over you.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
#17

Hi folks.

I do have a question for one of the candidates (ProfessorHenn), and don't exactly have a public place upon which to post so I apologise if this isn't the place for it. I don't believe a lot of TSP'ers will have seen a certain interview he conducted with Govindia - someone who is rather infamous for various kinds of harassment, and blackmail - over his decade in NationStates at the end of last year. It has just been posted as part of Wintreath's latest update and I'd like to hear from someone who aspires to be delegate of a feeder - exactly what he thinks what message it sends to people who have been victims of Govindia or suffered as a result of his actions.

As a Resident (Eagleswing has been resident in TSP for pretty much the entire time since its founding in 2013, with brief intervals), I'd like to ask ProfessorHenn whether he felt the interview was a wise course of action given that Govindia has been banned for harassment in The East Pacific (and don't forget the blackmail attempt he made as well), Equilism, Taijitu, Osiris, The North Pacific and various other regions?

You are well aware of several people who he's harassed, unfortunately. You know his story well - it's one that most people will ensure new players know about. He was banned from TSP's Zetaboard forum back in 2009 for harassment of someone who was, I believe, underage at the time if what I've read from that board is correct.

Whilst the timing of this interview being published is regretful, it raises a pretty hefty serious question - as Delegate would you allow him back into this region and community, knowing his history? As someone who has made no secret of your ambition to reach the highest office in this region, why would you consort with someone of this type?

Thank you in advance, and I apologise again for posting this here.





Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .