10-07-2017, 06:25 AM
Hello there, fellow Legislators,
I am running for Prime Minister again. Unfortunately, I'm running as the unopposed incumbent this time. In a way, that could be considered positive, because it means I didn't do my job so horrible that somebody felt forced to try to oppose me. But the negatives outweigh the positives - in the democratic system that we have, the way to keep candidates on their feet and accountable is to make them have to demonstrate their merit and that they are the right person to the job, in the knowledge that there are capable individuals who can give them a run for their money in the next election. To be blunt about it: If you're not satisfied with me, don't just vote for me anyway because I'm the only option, but vote RON. There's no shame attached to that.
Since I'm the incumbent, a significant part of the case I can build for myself in a reelection campaign is to review the last term. As it turns out, in my last campaign, Tsu asked me directly under what conditions I would look back on this term and consider it to be a good term. My answer was that I would consider the term to be good if there is a subjective feeling amongst legislators that the cabinet is transparent, active, and always reachable. I've reached out to a select few legislators and asked them about that very thing, insisting that I wanted to hear not just the positives but also the negatives.
Let's start with Drall, who I'll just quote verbatim:
This is mostly positive, though it contains a fair criticism - while I did introduce the "Office of the Prime Minister" thread, I didn't use that "bully pulpit" to its full potential.
Griffindor explicitly called that thread "brilliant", and also stated that "the cabinet was probably one of the best ones from a PR and activity standpoint in many terms", though he did clarify that he was referring to internal PR, not external. Omega mirrored both sentiments, particularly noting that "the office of the Prime Minister has notably been much more visible this term", and that "our GP presence leaves much to be desired". Herp also noted that we could have done a better job maintaining treaties.
Finally, Belschaft also wrote a paragraph best quoted verbatim, though it should probably be interpreted to be slightly satirical:
In summary - we haven't been perfect and there is much room for improvement, but the basic feeling of transparency, activity, and reachability is there. So I would say, despite all the GP shenanigans and the entire Lazarus situation and some "growing pains", it's been a good term.
Now, onto the future: I don't plan to change much from what I stated in my original campaign, and (unless he wins his MoFA race) I also do intend to keep Tsunamy around as a Senior Advisor to the Cabinet. Still, some things I do plan to do differently in the coming term:
That's pretty much it! I'd love to answer any and all of your questions, and hope to have presented a more convincing argument than our good friend RON.
-- Roavin
P.S. Hey, Tim? No puns in this campaign.
I am running for Prime Minister again. Unfortunately, I'm running as the unopposed incumbent this time. In a way, that could be considered positive, because it means I didn't do my job so horrible that somebody felt forced to try to oppose me. But the negatives outweigh the positives - in the democratic system that we have, the way to keep candidates on their feet and accountable is to make them have to demonstrate their merit and that they are the right person to the job, in the knowledge that there are capable individuals who can give them a run for their money in the next election. To be blunt about it: If you're not satisfied with me, don't just vote for me anyway because I'm the only option, but vote RON. There's no shame attached to that.
Since I'm the incumbent, a significant part of the case I can build for myself in a reelection campaign is to review the last term. As it turns out, in my last campaign, Tsu asked me directly under what conditions I would look back on this term and consider it to be a good term. My answer was that I would consider the term to be good if there is a subjective feeling amongst legislators that the cabinet is transparent, active, and always reachable. I've reached out to a select few legislators and asked them about that very thing, insisting that I wanted to hear not just the positives but also the negatives.
Let's start with Drall, who I'll just quote verbatim:
Quote:The Cabinet demonstrated a remarkable level of activity, and was clearly always there to answer whatever queries arose, as it often did. Whilst it was a fairly transparent term, aside from of course clandestine matters, I felt that the Cabinet on a whole could have been more forthcoming about updates from each of its branches. For the vast majority of the term, I was under the illusion that Foreign Affairs was fairly inactive and to a degree slacking, an illusion which was reinforced by the loss of a number of powerful allies. This illusion was dispelled, to my delight, when several treaties and revamps were enacted towards the end of the term. Nevertheless, I felt unaware of the general proceedings - something which could easily be rectified.
This is mostly positive, though it contains a fair criticism - while I did introduce the "Office of the Prime Minister" thread, I didn't use that "bully pulpit" to its full potential.
Griffindor explicitly called that thread "brilliant", and also stated that "the cabinet was probably one of the best ones from a PR and activity standpoint in many terms", though he did clarify that he was referring to internal PR, not external. Omega mirrored both sentiments, particularly noting that "the office of the Prime Minister has notably been much more visible this term", and that "our GP presence leaves much to be desired". Herp also noted that we could have done a better job maintaining treaties.
Finally, Belschaft also wrote a paragraph best quoted verbatim, though it should probably be interpreted to be slightly satirical:
Quote:Roavin has consistently put TSP first and avoided conflicts of interests, creating a facade of loyalty to the region, independence of thought and openness of mind. His willingness to support and authorise raiding and invasions by the SPSF, despite his personal dislike of such activity, shows the devious nature of his long term plan; to lull members into a false sense of security by acting in a reasonable, meritocratic, tolerant and welcoming manner, rejecting moralism and idealogical nonsense of all forms, all in service of his long term plans to subvert TSP and turn it into a bastion of moralist defending. This is entirely obvious, and that members of TSP refuse to see the treason he commits by acting in a manner that is fair and evenhanded suggests a general naivety on their part. A vote for Rovin is a vote against freedom and a vote for submission to moralist defenders. Hail Onder.
In summary - we haven't been perfect and there is much room for improvement, but the basic feeling of transparency, activity, and reachability is there. So I would say, despite all the GP shenanigans and the entire Lazarus situation and some "growing pains", it's been a good term.
Now, onto the future: I don't plan to change much from what I stated in my original campaign, and (unless he wins his MoFA race) I also do intend to keep Tsunamy around as a Senior Advisor to the Cabinet. Still, some things I do plan to do differently in the coming term:
- Use the forums more. Ever since the introduction of Discord, pretty much all areas of our governance has become a bit lazy and just discussed things on Discord instead of documenting it on the forums, where many of things belong. The forum is generally a better medium for anything traceable, and it's the only medium covered under the Sunshine Act. I've already made somewhat of a push for this in this previous term, but we needs to do it more.
- Issue more "Office of the PM" updates. I had usually waited to have something on all three Ministries, but in retrospect that's pretty silly so it's better to just push things as they come. I might set myself a reminder to push an update weekly if I hadn't pushed one otherwise - I haven't decided yet, but I would love your input on this.
- Look more at us than the outside. As a consequence of the Lazarus kerfuffle, I paid alot of attention to what Foreign Affairs and Military Affairs were doing but neglected Regional Affairs. That was a mistake on my part. With the Lazarus coup having pretty much wound down at this point, I have no excuses and will make an effort to expend my energy into that ministry just as much as I had into FA and MA the last term.
That's pretty much it! I'd love to answer any and all of your questions, and hope to have presented a more convincing argument than our good friend RON.
-- Roavin
P.S. Hey, Tim? No puns in this campaign.
![[Image: tenor.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/images/bb7a35836f1caba5829a9b53562f8f97/tenor.gif)
![[Image: nEf7xOL.png]](https://i.imgur.com/nEf7xOL.png)