So many questions this early already! Thank you for all of them.

(02-04-2021, 05:34 PM)Purple Hyacinth Wrote: How will you ensure that all of this work--posting updates abroad and at home, lurking in NSGP, maintaining the Wiki, etc.--won't be too much work for ambassadors? Do you worry about burnout or being unable to attract enough interested ambassadors from this large workload? If so, how do you plan to address this?

Going OOC here for a moment: IRL, I work as a senior software developer and am a co-team-leader in my department. One of the most effective changes we've introduced in the past two years was checklists. Before, the process for committing code changes was documented in some place but most of the time developers would just wing it with what they remembered and, ultimately, forget a step or two. We changed it so that in our groupware system, each task has a dedicated checklist with the individual items that need to be done before a task is considered completed. It's a really simple change but it had two easy benefits: For one, the obvious one, steps wouldn't be forgotten and were less likely to be done wrong because they were on the checklist, and we gave our QA department the permission to radically reject any task that didn't have a completed checklist. The second less obvious one is that it ended up being easier for developers (myself included) - when the code is written, it's just mindlessly stepping through the checklist once, which takes about 2-10 minutes depending on the complexity of the task, and it's done.

Back to TSP: The precise details of this would be worked out during the transition, as it may play hand-in-hand with management strategies that the next PM wishes to enact (for example, Glen's campaign makes reference to that). The principle, however, is that checklist approach, which in this case could likely just be an excel sheet.

(02-04-2021, 05:34 PM)Purple Hyacinth Wrote: Do you worry about your own burnout from trying to manage all of this?

Yes, and I've felt the burn (see my activity the latter half of 2020). I feel like I've successfully worked through that burn and am energized again. Besides, I'm only planning one term.

(02-04-2021, 05:34 PM)Purple Hyacinth Wrote: What role do you envision for Secretaries of States?

Unlike in previous terms, they wouldn't have a set of ambassadors they are responsible for, because that would conflict somewhat with the more socratic style I'm going for; rather, they would collectively help me make sure that things are being done. The checklist system would go a long way here for that.

(02-04-2021, 05:34 PM)Purple Hyacinth Wrote: How will you work with ambassadors who neglect their duties?

With lenience initially, but eventually the plug has to be pulled. While that won't be the case in the beginning, the system I'm hoping to set up would make it so that another ambassador can quickly step in.

(02-04-2021, 05:34 PM)Purple Hyacinth Wrote: Your campaign is largely focused on the ambassador program, with one vague paragraph about actual foreign policy. Can you elaborate more on what your foreign policy will be?

My views are mostly status-quo at this point, though I'll add a few short items:

Making sure PfS runs smoothly must be a priority. It's a huge idea, one with a boatload of potential, but we've also seen how big multi-lateral alliances can easily fail spectacularly throughout NS history (SovCon, SovAcc, CAIN, you name it). Swiftly appointing a competent Delegation is crucial here, not just to represent our own interests within PfS, but also to contribute towards its success with our own knowledge and expertise. I have not been a part of the PfS discussions so I'm not able to speak authoritatively on what other things may be needed here, however bringing people together towards common goals isn't something new to me - I once unified 6 GCRs, some with very opposing viewpoints, towards the historic Peacekeeper Agreement in Lazarus back in 2018.

We should strive to always be good allies and fulfill our obligations to them, even if it may be annoying or uncomfortable. Being a bad ally once outweighs being a good ally 20 times, and I can speak from experience (particularly from 2017) that having any perception of being a "bad ally" hang over a region's head, justified or not, is a harsh tide to swim against when it comes to doing business.

I'm satisfied with the set of alliances we have, and don't see an immediate need to augment the treaty web. That being said, I'm certainly open to new opportunities here, preferably (but not necessarily) regions that themselves are defender regions.

We shouldn't shy away from doing business with regions just because they aren't defender or democratic. There are regions that don't see eye to eye with us on this issue, but that we can engage with in mutual good faith and are therefore viable partners for collaboration on specific items where we do agree. The current leadership in the West Pacific comes to mind, but that's just one semi-arbitrary (if high-profile) example.

And finally, to preempt the inevitable question: Regarding the situation with our ally in the North, I certainly can't go into too many specific details right now, for several reasons including the fact that I wouldn't be in charge of the Minister for another 2.5 weeks. I believe there are many productive and fruitful conversations to be had with them and I'm looking forward to having those conversations with them once they have met our very reasonable demand for a public clarification on their part.

(02-04-2021, 05:47 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: You have been nominated as Associate Justice. While that position would not necessarily require daily attention, would you be able to assure voters that if elected Minister and confirmed as Justice, neither position would suffer from a deficit of attention?

The mindset for being a Justice and for being a Cabinet Minister are different, and therefore different moods will inspire one to work on one or the other in a given day's NS time. Assuming there are no big scandals, the busiest time for me within Cabinet will be the first few crucial weeks where things are being set up. I don't expect the High Court to immediately assign me as presiding justice for a case upon appointment.

(02-04-2021, 05:53 PM)Langburn Wrote: How would you increase the South Pacific's influence on the world stage when we continue to lose influence with the vast overwhelmingly majority of regions that are not explicitly defenders and with our closest allies fast becoming our fellow members of the PfS?

I disagree that we are losing influence on the world stage. We're not only allied with or on good terms with defenders, and I don't why that would change or should change.

(02-04-2021, 06:08 PM)Belschaft Wrote: You currently serve on the Legislator Committee, the General Corps, have been nominated to the High Court, are a Senior Moderator and Forum Admin. Whilst none of these posts are fire-walled against being held by a Cabinet Minister, they are five lifetime appointments to positions of authority and power. No one writing the regions laws ever really contemplated a single individual holding so many posts in our regional bureaucracy, never mind whilst simultaneously serving in political roles.

Which posts do you think are most important?

Which posts would you resign from if elected Minister of Foreign Affairs?

All those posts are important in their own way and necessary (in some sense) for the continuation of our government (for the IC positions) and our community (for the OOC positions). Personally, I'm looking forward to being able to resign from LegComm and GenCorps when I can do so in good conscience with regards to the continuity of those institutions, which will hopefully happen sooner rather than later.