the Cabinet doesn't work when there's a lot of discord

Solution: return to the forums! #ForumSupremacy [emoji14]

Don't let NP hear you say that!

Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

1) How do you feel about regional involvement in the election so far?

It looks like this election will be the least active in a long time, despite being the most competitive and having only one incumbent running for re-election. We're electing a whole new slate of ministers, but not many questions are being asked of the candidates. Last year's June election had about 100 more posts at this point!

2) Do you believe the Cabinet should go back to using formal statements as the primary means we communicate in the NSGP forums?

I do believe that we should be issuing formal statements more often, rather than having individual ministers post themselves in NSGP. I think we haven't because the past several administrations have been too scared, too risk averse, or too above it all to take a unified public stance. There's a pervasive belief in our politics of the moment that we should ignore almost everything going on outside of TSP, because getting involved either a) is beneath us as a region, or b) will incur "drama." Predictably, this has meant our enemies and adversaries have gotten the privilege of writing history unchallenged. When I was MoFA in 2014, it was common practice for all major regions to issue formal statements on major events in the game. We knew where regions stood, and those statements tended to be a lot more reasoned and debate-provoking than the current "shitposting" obsession. There's a time and place for taunting, but that shouldn't be all we do in NSGP.

3) If a minister disagreed got elected on a platform different than the agenda you are proposing the prime minister set (or simply disagrees) for the agenda you set out.  If it came down to it, who's view should have supremacy?

Like I explained above, if their disagreement was so strong that they would obstruct the rest of the Cabinet, then I reasonably would expect them to resign or face recall. If their disagreement isn't so strong, and they're willing to compromise, then that's the preferable path.

Reply

If you could highlight one aspect of your campaign to convince me to vote for you, what would it be?

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

Clearly, there become a lot of disharmony in the current Cabinet. Could you share your take on the "Motion of No Confidence" and what you would do differently to ensure a better working relationship?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

If you could highlight one aspect of your campaign to convince me to vote for you, what would it be?

This is a hard question for me, because I think there are two big reasons why you should vote for me: my promise for transparency and my knowledge of the game's broader politics. We used to debate our regional positions much more in the Assembly, and the Cabinet used to interact a lot more on a public level. That's something I want to go back to doing, because it really helped us solidify our values, introduced accountability, and also got people interested in parts of the game they probably wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise. (That's my story, actually!)

But on the other hand, there are major moves happening in Gameplay, and they implicate us no matter who sits in government and what their opinions on engagement happen to be. The IJCC is a shot across the bow to TSP and our allies, particularly the NPO, and there is no real basis to believe that it will be an inconsequential organization at this point. The Independent-imperialist sphere has reorganized itself, and you've got people involved there who have a lot of accomplishments in R/D and politics. The UIAF was no joke; it was an incredibly powerful organization in its time. Those same people are joining together with Europeia, which is not a region we should take for granted. TSP will be targeted, both militarily and politically. I have a lot of experience dealing with this bloc in the past, and TSP really needs people in government who know what to do when we're being targeted.

I think those are both equally important. But since you're asking me to pick one, I think I'll have to pick my experience staving off the Independent-imperialist bloc.

Clearly, there become a lot of disharmony in the current Cabinet. Could you share your take on the "Motion of No Confidence" and what you would do differently to ensure a better working relationship?

I think the motion was warranted. I had known Roavin was very frustrated with Tim and Escade for a while, as was I to different extents. At that point in the administration, it was really too late to rein in ministers who felt unmoored from the Prime Minister's leadership role. I saw Roavin try to put things straight, but it didn't work, or when it did it wasn't for very long. Ultimately, the problems stemmed from the Prime Minister being less of a leader and more of a coordinator, which let the MoFA and MoRA feel that the PM wasn't their boss and so they didn't really have to listen to him.

What I would do differently starts at that core. I would be a leader, not simply a coordinator. The Prime Minister is called "prime" for a reason, and the Cabinet ministers should respect the role, just as we respected the Delegate and Vice Delegate before as the leaders of the government. I also wouldn't tolerate nastiness on a personal level, and would not be shy about kicking ministers out of chats for a time, just as we would in any other moderation setting. I understand that debate can get heated and people can disagree vehemently-- I've been there! -- but it needs to be about policy, not personal animosities. I also think that conducting more Cabinet business on the forums, rather than Discord, would lead to less problems. Forums are long-form, rather tit-for-tat like Discord is. We have better debates in paragraphs than we do in quick back-and-forth discussions.

Reply

There's a time and place for taunting, but that shouldn't be all we do in NSGP.

What do you think is the "time and place" for taunting/shitposting on GP? How much freedom would you allow ministers to post whatever they want on NSGP, and would your personal posting habits/style change at all if elected as PM? Do you believe being a minister means you represent TSP to the world at all times, or only when you are releasing an official statement?

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

Reply

There are many things to be said about Glen, and many that have an opinion (founded or not) about him in some fashion. Most pervasive (though more outside of TSP than within it) is that he is some kooky old corrupt defender sycophant. After working with him over the past two and a half years in many settings, I've found that none of that is true.

Glen is brazen and speaks his mind whenever he can, but knows when to keep calm and be professional. Glen is somebody that won't take no for an answer, will say so in no uncertain terms, but then sit down to negotiate an amicable compromise that all parties can agree to. Glen and I have disagreed on quite a few things in the past, but many times he has proven to be right about things afterall. His acute awareness of GP matters shouldn't be underestimated, and I think he's shown time and time again that he is a loyal South Pacifican through and through.

Brazen, opinionated, loyal, trustworthy, and competent. I think this is exactly the kind of Prime Minister TSP can use right now.

Reply

There's a time and place for taunting, but that shouldn't be all we do in NSGP.

What do you think is the "time and place" for taunting/shitposting on GP? How much freedom would you allow ministers to post whatever they want on NSGP, and would your personal posting habits/style change at all if elected as PM? Do you believe being a minister means you represent TSP to the world at all times, or only when you are releasing an official statement?

It’s more of a saying than me thinking there’s a concrete time for it. Preferably it’s saved for after publishing a well-written and powerful official statement. With certain factions, like Wolf and his friends, it’s useless to engage in long one-sided debate. But I tend to think if you’re going to argue with the Independent-imperialist sphere, who are more thoughtful and professional than the nihilist Wolf-type raiders, it’s better to beat them at an *actual debate* rather than one-liners.

As for freedom to post, the problems there exist when ministers are contradicting each other, not supporting and backing each other, or they’re just not very good at responding. Roavin implementing an official gag rule is unprecedented in my memory, but the root cause for it was a Cabinet that wasn’t on the same page. If everybody is on the same page, there are common talking points, and ministers can write a commanding post, I don’t see why they shouldn’t. I wouldn’t hold any fallout against them, if they’re saying things that match the views and policies we all already discussed.

I do believe that it’s really difficult to separate people from their positions when they’re talking about in-game issues, like coups or politics or R/D. There’s no “off the record” in NS. I don’t think this means ministers have to shut up and never say what they want, just that words can have consequences, so just try to make sure those consequences work in our favor. I’m not allergic to drama and acknowledge that a lot of this game revolves around it, and that’s a lot of the fun in NSGP (at least when it’s about the game and not about personal stuff).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I think this is a very impressive campaign, and that in other circumstances you would make an excellent PM. However your commitment to remaining as a Court Justice whilst serving as PM makes voting for you completely impossible for me, and I am of the firm opinion that were any other candidate but yourself be expressing such an intent you would be equally unimpressed.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I think this is a very impressive campaign, and that in other circumstances you would make an excellent PM. However your commitment to remaining as a Court Justice whilst serving as PM makes voting for you completely impossible for me, and I am of the firm opinion that were any other candidate but yourself be expressing such an intent you would be equally unimpressed.

That's your right, of course. I did say that if the consensus of the region was that Prime Ministers shouldn't be able to serve as Associate Justices, then I would step down as Associate Justice. While I respect your position, I don't think your last criticism is fair and it ignores the response I gave to you when you said it before. Minds can change, and my mind changed far before I was nominated to be Associate Justice or before I decided to run for Prime Minister. The law that allows Associate Justices to serve other roles was passed unanimously back in March, and even you voted for it. So I don't think it's fair at all to lodge this criticism -- that I am wanting special exemption from something I'd criticize anyone else for doing -- when the consensus of the region back in March was that there should not be a firewall, which was a highlighted pillar of the reforms.

I find myself in an awkward position, because I've been 100% honest and upfront about this from the moment I was asked to fill out the judicial appointment questionnaires. I said I had no intention of decreasing my political involvement and that I would likely run for office. Multiple Cabinet members knew explicitly that I was mulling a run. (Originally, I was thinking of running for MoFA, but not dead-set. Roavin's retirement and the motion of no confidence changed my plans.) I was chosen anyways and confirmed 20-1, with the question of my electoral ambitions not being brought up any further. The process of choosing the two of us as Associate Justices was long and painful, and I didn't wish to cause a judicial vacancy 2 weeks after being confirmed, that a lame duck Cabinet would be forced to fill. So I stand by my decision to not resign as justice, absent a clear consensus that I should. I think that's reasonable and fair.

Reply