The South Pacific

I will try to keep this reasonably brief. I know it almost surely won't end up that way, as I have a fair bit I need to say. Apologies in advance. If I didn't think it was worth reading and considering, I wouldn't be writing it, so hopefully you do.

=======

As you are probably aware, I am currently one of the Justices here in TSP. Although I have only been in this role a short time, I have had to get very familiar with our key legislation (Charter, Code of Laws, Election Act etc), especially as a lot of clarifications are being made in recent times - it has been much busier than I anticipated. As you have probably seen from Farengeto's thread, the current legislation is full of inconsistencies, omissions and loopholes. You probably are unaware how bad they actually are until you are in a position where you need to make a legal ruling on the Charter/CoL and need to interpret flawed documents - I know I sure was. To be honest, I would go as far as to say quite a few sections are so bad, we nearly need to start over with them entirely.

Why? The main issue is that currently the Charter and Code of Laws have been put together piecemeal, as individual clauses have been written by individuals over time, many with their own personal agendas (Belschaft admitted writing the clause which was used to remove his citizenship as one he planned to be used for his own purposes for example). If elected, one of my key policies will be to start a series of discussion threads where various sections of the Charter/CoL are analysed and discussed in the Assembly (Over time, all of it will be planned to be reviewed over my term). As a group we will discuss and amend each section, modifying and rewriting these where required as we go. I believe having the Charter and Code of Laws put together as a group, rather than by a collection of individuals (there is an important difference) will lead to a much better set of legislation.

That review is one of my main goals if elected, something I strongly believe needs to occur and has not been raised by the other two (currently) nominees, at least in detail. The alternative is to not review it and to just introduce more inconsistencies with every new piece of legislation over time as is the current situation. I think the legislation we have currently needs to be fixed. This clearly does include the need for new legislation for things not currently covered by the current legislation. Issues such as citizenship approval and judicial reform are obviously not clearly defined, as these have been major discussions recently. I plan to work both with the courts and cabinet, along with the assembly to find solutions to these issues which are suitable to all parties. Too often things have been thrown in the "too hard" basket lately and to be honest, that is just not good enough. That accomplishes nothing.

Other things I would like to introduce are more minor administrative things about the CoA role itself. As not everyone is in the same time zone, I plan on including a countdown timer on votes so people know when these will close, without trying to figure out time zone differences. I also would plan on creating a topic listing/linking all current votes and voting deadlines which is regularly updated to be made as a sticky topic. Both minor, but I think both are simple to implement and will help people keep track of what is being voted on, which has not been easy with the amount of legislation lately. In a similar vein, clearly identifying the text that is being amended in any vote (bold or different color text for example) would definitely help, as was brought up in the last few days in the EC thread, which I am also in favour of.

Thanks for reading. I will be honest and say I may not be as qualified for this position as either Unibot or Farengeto in terms of similar experience, despite being in the region for 4 years now (probably longer than either of the others). That said, I do think I am more than capable in handling the role, passionate about doing what is best for TSP and in my opinion I am a great choice for the position. If either Unibot or Farengeto are elected instead, they will have my full support though, as I do believe both are very strong candidates.

I know I have possibly taken a more radical position with regards to change than the other two candidates, by planning to undertake the full review of current legislation, however I do believe it is necessary and by far the best way to fix it. Yes it is not a unique idea (previous Great Council's have done similar things), however I do believe this is a good way to give everyone ownership of our legislation and to have more faith it is not tainted by people with a specific agenda.

I'm not going to ask you to vote for me specifically - I hope everyone votes for whoever they personally think will be the best choice as CoA for the region. If that is me though, I appreciate it. If not, I won't hold it against you, as everyone has their own opinion and I respect that. As it is an elected position, it should be someone representing YOUR interests (and everyone else's), choose whoever you think will make the region better. That is what I am aiming for with my campaign, as if you know me, I am dedicated to TSP only, and want it to be the best it possibly can be - sure it is a great region already, but it can always get even better!

Apologies if this is a bit incoherent, it likely is, it has been a long day for me and I need to get some sleep. Hopefully it is clear enough. Feel free to ask any questions, which I know you have, I will do my best to answer these.

Thanks.

What qualifications do you believe a good chair should have and how do they fall in line with your own qualifications?

If you were Chair during the last term what would you have done differently?

Thanks Hile, I will answer your questions and any others posted when I get home tonight (around 10 hours from now).

I really like what you've laid out here. It's ambitious but thoughtful, and it's clear you're passionate about the issues you've raised. Good luck.

Long answers again. Sorry if you wanted a briefer response. I feel I may need to persuade a lot of people I am the right person for the position - I am probably less known than my opponents, as I have never been a part of the Cabinet previously and feel a longer response is necessary, so bear with me.

(03-17-2015, 03:30 PM)Hileville Wrote: [ -> ]What qualifications do you believe a good chair should have and how do they fall in line with your own qualifications?

If you were Chair during the last term what would you have done differently?

To be a good chair, you need to have a few key traits, among these: to be able to be organized and process driven, to be able to deal with people who try to push through legislation before it has been adequately discussed and recognising this, being able to maintain a level head, and being able to steer arguments that are going in circles towards an acceptable solution.

To show how I am capable of this, I will give an example from my real life outside NS. My job is an engineer and I spend a lot of time dealing with contractors. This is a bit like here really - the contractors (think members of the Assembly) like having a smooth job where everything goes perfect, but it never works like that. The engineer (Chair) has to deal with issues that come up and sort this out with the contractors, while maintaining the integrity of the contract specifications (Legislation). Like legislation, these specifications (which I have to prepare myself) will never cover everything perfectly. Often issues will be raised and a solution needs to be found, which requires certain skills, as contractors always try to ensure they save every dollar possible with their solution, and I try to ensure that we get the best job possible. Although my job is not exactly the same as that of the Chair (obviously), to ensure I do my job in a satisfactory manner, I do need to possess almost all of the key traits mentioned that a Chair needs to have, to ensure a solution that works for everyone.

As for NS examples, I hope I have shown in my time in the region a lot of the other key aspects of the Chair's role. I was asked by Tsu to be a liaison to the RMB community during the Grand Council, explaining what was being discussed to the region, many who do not visit the forums. I have been a Justice, where I have been able to both analyse and make the right interpretation of the legislation of the region that I will be working with (as much as possible anyway). I have been a long term CSS member showing I have the trust of many in the region to do what is right for the region. Although some of these were not mentioned as key traits earlier, they are equally as important for the Chair to possess.

Phew.

With your second question, I will start by saying I believe Uni has done a lot of good things for the region. I don't think many will argue with that. Can't fault much of what he has done.

One thing I do want to try to change is to ensure we get legislation right the first time. Quite a few sections of legislation have been modified multiple times (the election legislation has been modified at least 7 times in 8 months under Uni's time as Chair for example from a quick count on the table of votes). This is unacceptable really. That said, I don't believe this is entiely the fault of the Chair. I think this is more an issue with the system, rather than any action of the previous Chair and it is something I believe needs to be looked at. I know that the Chair has a responsibility to bring anything motioned and seconded to a vote, and a lot rests on the Chair to discourage people from motioning/seconding proposals before they are adequately discussed (as happens too often). I also aim to encourage everyone to have their say on any changes proposed by actually READING what is proposed, ANALYSING it and PROPOSING AMENDMENTS of it where necessary. Too often people don't do this until it is too late. It is something I will be encouragong as part of the section review process, and will hopefully lead to people paying more attention to the possible issues with new legislation also. This may lead to less legislation being passed, however I would prefer less, high standard legislation reforms to more poor standard reforms passing (which then get amended again anyway).

(03-17-2015, 06:02 PM)Sopo Wrote: [ -> ]I really like what you've laid out here. It's ambitious but thoughtful, and it's clear you're passionate about the issues you've raised. Good luck.

Thanks Sopo. I am passionate about making this region the best it can be. Everything I have proposed is achievable and I will do my best to ensure it happens if elected.

I'm glad you are running for this position. I always wish that we had more candidates who have been active in TSP, especially if outside of the cabinet government, and have a history of service or care for the region.

1. CoA is considered by some to be the toughest job in the cabinet because of you've outlined very well already (keeping a cool head, organizing multiple legislation pieces, being clear and direct, high rate of "turn-over" ). How will you change the review process or procedures for CoA in terms of specifics?

2. If you did not win this position, would you try to take on a mentorship or deputy position with the CoA and try again next term?

3. What qualities or strength do your opponents in this election have that you would want to emulate?

(03-18-2015, 09:19 AM)Escade Wrote: [ -> ]I'm glad you are running for this position. I always wish that we had more candidates who have been active in TSP, especially if outside of the cabinet government, and have a history of service or care for the region.

1. CoA is considered by some to be the toughest job in the cabinet because of you've outlined very well already (keeping a cool head, organizing multiple legislation pieces, being clear and direct, high rate of "turn-over" ). How will you change the review process or procedures for CoA in terms of specifics?

2. If you did not win this position, would you try to take on a mentorship or deputy position with the CoA and try again next term?

3. What qualities or strength do your opponents in this election have that you would want to emulate?

Thanks for the questions Escade. Getting late here but I'll try to answer these now.

1. Not 100% sure what you are referring to here with this question, sorry but I will try to answer. If I haven't covered it, please let me know.

With regards to procedures for the CoA, I do think the Chair should have more power to extend discussion periods, or allow bills to be amended after being seconded where necessary prior to voting, but can see how this could be abused as well. That is the main thing I think could change with the role of the Chair. Overall it works quite well, and little change is needed.

How I plan to conduct reviews, I plan on taking one section of the Charter or CoL at a time and getting people to discuss the validity of each individual clause, how this clause can potentially be misused and if any changes are required etc. I will then be regularly posting an updated version of that section taking into account comments made, and noting the changes made. Once there is general agreement on a revised version of that section people are happy with, I would be moving it to vote. I know not everyone will like each individual clause, but if people participate, it should lead to a much improved legislation that everyone is generally happy with.

2. That would be up to the elected Chair to determine. I do believe I would be an asset to the Chair and could work with either of the other two candidates, however any deputy staffing is their decision ultimately. I do believe that sort of role would give me more experience, however I will not be asking straight out for a deputy position.

3. Unibot - Doesn't get affected by a lot of criticism he cops and is very persuasive in his opinions.
Farengeto - Well respected and very knowledgeable in the intricacies of our legislation.
Both are probably better at legislative writing than I am, I either ramble (as seen here) or I am too much to the point. Something I wish I could be better at.

Now the nomination period is officially closed, I would just like to wish the best of luck to my two opponents. May the best candidate win!

I am still more than happy to answer any queries anyone may have regarding my campaign. As I am probably the unknown quantity here in terms of cabinet experience, it is probably a case of the more questions the better.

Congratulations Aramanchovia. *offers to shake hands* Good luck on your future term as the new Chair.

Thanks for the best wishes Uni. You ran a really good campaign as evidenced by the close vote. You have done a great job as Chair over your two terms and I hope to be able to continue with the good work myself. I do have a hard act to follow though.

Thanks to Farengeto for running as well, I know from working with you in the courts the last few months you would have done a great job as well as Chair. I will likely be continuing to speak to you both for your opinions and advice over coming months on various matters, feel free to contact me at any time too.

That last part goes for anyone - if you have any ideas, advice, opinions or even complaints, let me know. I will likely make some mistakes and can always do things better, just like anyone does. Let me know, politely preferably . I don't mind hearing from anyone, as I am meant to be representing you all on cabinet and if I don't hear from you, I can't really do this effectively.

Finally, thank you to everyone for trusting me with this role. I will do my best not to let you down. Looking forward to a good four months for us all!