| [PASSED] Appointment of Resentine to the Legislator Committee |
Congratulations on the nominations Resentine.
That being said, could the Cabinet or the nominee disclose the answers posted during the application process? I have some concerns resulting from his "propensity to drop off the face of the earth for a while."
(05-20-2018, 09:24 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: Congratulations on the nominations Resentine. I can do that, yes, though I should note that latter issue was something that wasn't addressed much here and that I had discussed with him separately via Voice Chat at one point. I encourage you to ask Res about it directly. Describe your previous experience with forum administration, IP checks, and/or email checks. Have experience serving as main admin on non-DigitalOcean platforms, have experience with IP checks on DigitalOcean and non-DigitalOcean platforms, have never done email checks but willing to learn if neccesary. Describe your experience and familiarity with the general culture of NationStates Gameplay and the position that the South Pacific plays within it. My experience with NSGP, though I was a General in SPSF since May 2015 and had fought during the NLO Coup in March, never really picked up until the Hile Coup in January/February 2016. It was there I gained the pivotal part of my experience, understanding all the different factions and the interactions in-between them. I've learned much more since then, understanding their workings, mainly as an observer, throughout the Undead Laz Coup, The collapse and re-establishment of Westphalia, the deterioration of relations between the NPO and the "tall I" Independent/Imperialist sphere, interacting and learning with folks from everywhere from the citizenry of UDS to the Regents of the NPO. As for TSP's position, since my time here, I've found it to be increasingly unique. In the greater R/D sphere, almost continually, along with our allies in TNP and TEP, seem to be the only ones practicing actual independentism instead of just preaching it. We have standing defensive alliances with the NPO, TNP and TEP, and have no relations with TWP, Osiris, or Balder, all regions who consider us hostile, but only Osiris and Balder have gone so far as to ban our citizens outright. We work regularly with defender orgs and other UCR independent and raider orgs(that will let us work with them) for military operations, and for the ones we don't work with we party up with them for bashing fascists. We have one of the most active GCR militaries in NSGP and I doubt that is changing any time soon. As for my opinion: NSGP sucks. It's filled with 3 camps of people: Firstly, circle-jerking narcissists who are constantly looking to one-up each other and argue to no end; secondly, people who honestly only care enough about the politics to try and make a mockery of those who've gotten way to invested in this game; and thirdly, people who are invested in a way that they want to end all the stupid drama garbage that goes on there but feel powerless. I like to consider myself part of the 2nd group. It's not that I don't think the game is interesting, and that the politics doesn't write itself like a bad political drama, it's just I think everyone could use a nice jab or two from time to time to CTFO. Describe any conflicts of interest, personal flaws, or other such matters that may impact your work on the Legislator Committee. OOC Friendship with Rigel(TWP) and Syberis(Osiris), narcissism, unannounced disappearances(which I am working on), SPSF Generalship What maximum response time are you willing to pledge (for times you are not on a Leave of Absense)? 48 hours The Legislator Committee Act notes some required information that must be present on an application for Legislator status. Beyond the legally required information, which information do you feel the Legislator Committee should add to the application? Other than attempting to develop some way of ensuring applicants understand TSP codes, I can't really think of much to add on. Ensuring people actually understands TSP's codes and laws is just a way of ensuring people know what they're getting into, but I wouldn't seriously pursue it unless it became a pressing matter. Continuing from the previous question, what kind of information do you feel should be, or may be, inquired from an applicant via public or private dialogue? Other than *privately* requesting IP addresses and *maybe* emails, I can't think of much. Only use of requesting IP addresses from them would be to doubly verify what we get from IP checks. Do you feel that the committee should continue to track IP and/or email information throughout a member's legislatorship? Yes. It's important that LegComm be able to ensure that no one is creating alternate accounts in an attempt to manipulate the Legislature, or to be aware of changes so that way we aren't caught off-guard when someone's IP adress changes to a new computer. That said: we should try and find ways to ensure IP tracking does not get abused by any members of the LegComm, for any sort of malicious purpose. While I'm not sure on what that might look like, I do think there is a way we can maintain IP security while still protecting the privacy of TSPers. Assuming that no CRS members are members of the committee, how do you think the coordination between the CRS and the Committee should be done? There should be some sort of direct channel or chatroom for LegComm members and CRS Members to communicate directly. If for any reason, LegComm has reason to suspect an applicant or member of the Legislature is acting abnormally in a way that might threaten the security of the Coalition, they should be able to report it directly to the CRS. No loopholes, no PM's waiting for a response. Assuming that the Chair of Assembly is not a member of the committee, how do you think the coordination between the Chair and the Committee should be done? Same as with CRS with a direct channel with the addition of mandated regular meetings to discuss new applicants or new revocations in the Legislature. While the Chair no longer plays a direct hand in these activities, I do feel it is important to keep them up to date on the workings of the LegComm, as long as they continue to serve in that capacity. Would you rather prefer that the Committee operates on a consensus model, or that the Committee chooses a leader amongst its members ? Consensus model. Even if we expanded the number of members in LegComm, if enough people in the committee disagree on an application, it's important that all sides be heard, and all probabilities properly assessed. In which cases do you see the need for a standing or select non-voting advisor for the Committee? Simply, in cases where the LegComm has either been shown to be acting in a corrupt manner, either by deliberately excluding applicants for superfluous reasons, or in a case where a member of the Committee has a blatant Conflict, in which case a non-voting advisor might take their place temporarily in the decision-process. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(05-20-2018, 06:16 PM)The North Crystal Wrote: I'm still learning about people, but can you tell me about yourself? A nice tl;dr(since I'm not into essays) I joined TSP in March 2015, joined SPSF in the same month, and served as the head of SPSF operations in Lazarus during the NLO Coup. In May of that year, I was appointed and confirmed to SPSF Generalship, a position I am still actively serving. Other than that, I had a long stint as MoMA(MoA) during the 6 month convention in the aftermath of the Hileville coup.
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi
And I second the earlier motion (though I haven't checked if the debate time is over already)
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
RP-Government Information| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |