(05-27-2018, 04:17 PM)The Serres Republic Wrote: Because honestly, it is nonsensical drama that should have never seen the light of the assembly.

Generally, when issues have been brought up in the past during political campaigns, they were written off as negative attacks just to win an election. I didn’t feel that my words would be heard in the high-stakes context of an election, and South Pacificans would have voted obliviously. These problems have been going on for months, and the past week or so they’ve heightened to the point where I don’t think it’s okay to keep the region in the dark.

(05-27-2018, 04:25 PM)nakari Wrote: Would it be correct to say that the dysfunctionality is why it took so long for Associate Judges and the third Legcomm member to be appointed?

No, I concur with what Tim wrote with one addition: an emergency member is, by design, different from a full member. I still refused to allow myself to be appointed as a full member.

(05-27-2018, 04:38 PM)Escade Wrote: I disagree with this depiction as it I think degrades all the wonderful things the players in question have done in the cabinet this term; whether a solid new treaty, festival with new and old allies, and excellent activity records on our Discord that will improve our stats as well as general image as a great region.  

Emphasis mine. I appeal to the reasonable reader here — I quite explicitly mentioned in the OP that you had been doing "fantastic work".

(05-27-2018, 05:29 PM)Amerion Wrote: I am disappointed that this motion is being filed so close to the election. While no one outside Cabinet can say with certainty whether it is merited, the timing of it suggest great political damage to all those involved and that is rather saddening.

Before this thread is passed off as a smear job, I should note that I'm quite conscious that this significantly damages me as well, and I knew this going into it.

(05-27-2018, 07:03 PM)Tim Wrote: At times, I did not see an effort from the Prime Minister to involve the Foreign Ministry until after I took more agressive measures. While the PM is the Head of Government, the Charter makes clear where FA power is invested in, and while I'll admit I acted disrespectfully towards the Prime Minister at times, I felt similarly disrespected. I admit I could have maybe applied a more tactful manner of conflict resolution, but one of my biggest frustrations is when people go behind my back, so I was rather incensed on the topic.

Besides the Lazarus issue pre-Imki-takeover, what else are you referring to?

(05-27-2018, 07:03 PM)Tim Wrote: Roavin is also being far from accurate on some elements. My opposition to Cormac's involvement was not absolute, and it's really disengenious that he is saying that. My opposition was to Cormac being in a leadership role within the Liberation, something I would think is a more than reasonable stance to have given his history both with The South Pacific and across Nationstates. Roavin continuously kept pushing for and defending Cormac, so I did what I could to actually preserve our Coalition's ideals. While Cormac has plenty of experience, he could contribute to the liberation without being leadership, and ended up doing that just fine.

The official version you sent was an outright prohibition on Cormac involvement. In DMs, I asked for some clarification, which with your permission I'd like to paste here verbatim to let our fellow Legislators decide.

(05-27-2018, 07:03 PM)Tim Wrote: The liberation sure as hell wasn't "nearly derailed" due to it.

No, that's not what I said. TSP's involvement nearly was, and I think you and I agree that not having TSP involved in the historical and record-breaking Peacekeeper Agreement would have been quite bad.

(05-27-2018, 07:03 PM)Tim Wrote: Furthermore, Roavin is incorrect about when I was involved, as I knew about the plan prior to the reclamation of the delegacy, and also presented the stance regarding Cormac well in advance of the delegacy being reclaimed.

Yes, you knew beforehand because I had requested releasing some specific related information to the "in"-group. You didn't get involved until the Delegacy takeover, when everybody relevant from the Peacekeeper regions was brought together to discuss how to move forward.

[quote="Tim" pid='171120' dateline='1527462191']If you want to sin me for being at-times inactive, that's fair. It's been a hectic four months, between losing internet for a month, losing power for a bit, rent troubles, and other matters I won't be getting into. I still think we've seen stuff accomplished, and I've been really proud of the work which has been done. I wish I could have had more consistent levels of activity, but I'd rather lapse in activity than lapse in RL.

I don't fault you at all for any of that. When possible and necessary, I picked up the slack and helped out (for example, processing pending ambassador applications). I see it as my duty, as expressed in all three of my PM campaigns, to be the "ultimate deputy" for ministerial absences, and so it would be disingenuous of me to put you on the spot for that. My issue is rather with things like that mythical Monday for which you promised all sorts of things, including things I had deliberately been waiting on, for example.

(05-27-2018, 06:53 PM)Pencil Sharpeners Wrote: 1. None of you are new players. Prior to the beginning of this term, did any of you have any concerns about your ability to work with other members of this cabinet?

No. I had worked with Escade for 8 months prior to that, and with Tim for over a year in an entirely different region. I knew their strengths and weaknesses (just as, presumably, they are well aware of my strengths and weaknesses).

(05-27-2018, 06:53 PM)Pencil Sharpeners Wrote: 2. At what point did you realise that there were potentially unworkable problems within the cabinet?

There isn't really one particular point in time I can point to, but rather it's been a dawning realization over the course of months.

(05-27-2018, 06:53 PM)Pencil Sharpeners Wrote: 3. What steps have you taken as a team in an attempt to solve these problems?

As a team, none really. For the most part, I tried to deal with issues separate from the Cabinet Office to keep that somewhat "pure", and so I have tons of DMs with Escade about various issues and there are several discussions in MoFA HQ as well as Tim DMs. I should have done several things differently months ago, but as always, hindsight is 20/20.

(05-27-2018, 06:53 PM)Pencil Sharpeners Wrote: 4. Were you all fully aware of the problems within the cabinet, and the potential consequences of these?

No. I don't think anybody has the overarching view I have (which is fine - having that is my job, not theirs). I could have been a bit more upfront about some things, but there wasn't an issue I didn't bring up somewhere.

(05-27-2018, 08:14 PM)Pencil Sharpeners Wrote: 5. The other ministers do not seem to believe that the problems are unworkable. Have you brought up your perceived severity of the problems previously with the cabinet?

Most likely, we will be working together until the 22nd. I hope we'll be able to somehow maintain ourselves until that time. So I will agree with them that it's not completely unworkable, if dysfunctional.

There isn't a problem expressed here that I didn't discuss at least with the involved individual. I didn't bring up a holistic view as expressed to the OP, as I was usually dealing rather day-to-day. That being said, it would have been met with incredulity anyway, I'm certain of it (based on history).

(05-27-2018, 08:14 PM)Pencil Sharpeners Wrote: 6. How often were discussions about these issues held in places that not all cabinet members have access to (such as DMs)? Do you believe that more discussions should have taken place between the entire cabinet?

Most of these were in DMs or in more specialized channels. See Answer 3.

(05-27-2018, 08:14 PM)Pencil Sharpeners Wrote: 7. How have the issues in this term compared to any issues in previous terms, particularly concerning Tim and Escade, with whom you have worked with as PM before?

With regards to Escade, there isn't anything necessarily new, but it has gotten completely out of hand and beyond a point where I can apply logic and reason to defuse a situation.

With regards to Tim, I'm not sure what happened. The previous term went well, I think, but also was generally quieter. This term, the general tone became more aggressive and less serious (not intrinsically bad) to a fault (bad).

I can't elaborate as much as I'd like on both, as there are many things that were said in DMs and VC.

(05-27-2018, 08:56 PM)Amerion Wrote: I am curious whether in the case that all current Cabinet members elect to run and are indeed re-elected to serve, whether each of you would be confident that all existing issues can be solved so as to ensure the next term is not as divisive as is the current one.

I sincerely doubt that will happen.

I, for my part, will not stand for reelection as PM, and I may only consider a FA run if there really is no remotely qualified candidate. I've been in 5 of the 6 past Cabinets. Not only do I really need a break, I think the region can use a fresh face or three.

---

And one more note: Notice that Escade keeps saying that I am degrading her or other's contributions to the region. I did not do so, and in fact explicitly praised Escade's work in particular in the original post. I hope South Pacificans recognize this for what it is: a cheap rhetorical trick, nothing more.