States of Glory

States of Glory/Arotania for WA Affairs 2K18!

Recommended Posts

Greetings, fellow citizens! You may be wondering why I've decided to run for reelection after I initially declined to do so. After all, I stated that recent and future inactivity meant that I was not able to fulfil the duties required of the role. Indeed, on my own, this would still be true: I'm not going to be able to attend to everything that I need to attend to.

However, instead of refusing to run outright, I'm going to try something that has yet to be done under the present constitution: I'm going to be running for Minister of WA Affairs on a joint ticket with @Arotania.

Now, some of you may be wondering if this is actually allowed. The answer is yes. From the Manners:

Quote

3. All other ministries will be elected by the Hall of Nations. They will serve a three-month term. They may resign or be terminated by the Delegate before the end of their term. Ministers may serve unlimited terms. The Delegate may replace a Minister at any time for any reason.      

4. Any minister may appoint assistants as needed to fulfill the duties of the position.  

Only the Minister of WA Affairs is an elected position, yes, and the Manners treats it as a singular item, but it clearly says that assistants may be appointed at will. Therefore, my intention is that if I get elected, I will appoint Arotania as my assistant. Unlike previous occasions when this has happened, I'm advertising this front-and-centre as it's my major campaign promise.

What's the point of doing this, then? Well, when I first started as WA Minister, @Bhang Bhang Duc was already part of the ministry and we effectively operated as a duo; later on, @Drachmaland joined the team. I firmly believe that this was when the ministry was at its most efficient; we kept on top of everything and communications with the Delegate were frequent and fruitful.

However, things have changed since then. For the past several months, I've had to run the entire operation single-handedly, keeping on top of two very different chambers in addition to the Gameplay forum; that sort of thing inevitably leads to burnout. It also means that I've had less time to prepare regular reports, to maintain contact with the Delegate and to mentor potential future ministers. 

I initially contacted Arotania to encourage him to run as my successor, but after some discussion, we agreed that a joint ticket may be the best solution. Firstly, it provides me with some relief as I can focus on stuff like keeping an eye on the WA forums and thinking up new innovations while Arotania can deal with some of the more banal tasks. Secondly, due to time zones, I can't always make timely recommendations before update; having a second individual provides a failsafe. In addition, it gives Arotania some valuable experience for the role and my hope is that should this succeed, more people will volunteer to help out, leaving me confident of the ministry's future in the event that I decide to retire (because let's be honest, it's got to happen at some point).

What else do I suggest apart from appointing an assistant? One of my ideas is a regular update. Under Badger's Delegacy, I published a couple of monthly dispatches, but they weren't that well-publicised and I eventually stopped doing them. My intention is to revive them so that they're fortnightly instead of monthly (so that dramatic changes can be observed more easily) and possibly delegating them to Arotania (because I've got to give the poor guy something to do :P), though of course, I'll supervise the first few to make sure that he gets the hang of it.

Why vote for me over Aleister, then? Firstly, I've actually got a campaign. ;) 

Secondly, experience. I don't wish to doubt Aleister's experience for a moment; indeed, I doubt that Badger nominated them for no reason. However, he has yet to tell us what that experience is, and I myself am ignorant of it. The lack of a campaign doesn't help. I, on the other hand, have demonstrated my experience during my previous terms; there's a reason why Medio nominated me as soon as nominations were opened.

Finally, I've got a manifesto. Aleister's lack of a campaign means that I don't know what they stand for; I don't know what they're going to add to the ministry; I don't know what they pledge to do if they get into office.

To be clear, in the event that I get reelected, I would be more than happy to welcome Aleister into the ministry. The more, the merrier. At the least, it allows them to showcase what they're capable of. 

tl;dr: SoG for WA Minister; Arotania for SoG's slave!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why exactly should the Hall of Nations vote for you for Minister, if you intend on just displacing your responsibilities to another because of the inherent inactivity that you've already acknowledged twice now?

If Arotania is going to be inevitably pursuing the responsibilities of the Minister of World Assembly Affairs, then shouldn't Arotania be running for Minister?  You intend on delegating the responsibilities of your job, including your additional ideas for your role, to Arotania as described above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Aleister said:

Why exactly should the Hall of Nations vote for you for Minister, if you intend on just displacing your responsibilities to another because of the inherent inactivity that you've already acknowledged twice now?

How am I displacing my responsibilities? I thought I made it pretty clear that Arotania will be handling the bureaucratic aspects of the role, and I gave one example of such a role. The main thrust of the ministry (i.e. following the forums, issuing recommendations, thinking of ways to increase our reach, answering questions from newbies, giving detailed critique of drafts posted here) will still be handled by myself if I get elected; I never stated otherwise.

Tell me this: why should the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs be unique among TWP ministries in that it only has one member? Before the introduction of elections, the Ministry contained three people, and it managed to get things done as we had multiple individuals who could coordinate a strategy. Introducing a second guy isn't being lazy; if anything, it's an acceptance of the fact that we can't have an entire ministry resting on one person's shoulders.

Say that you go inactive due to RL (it's happened to you before). What's your contingency plan? Will there be someone with the adequate knowledge who can hold the fort in the interim? Not having a knowledgeable backup was a fatal flaw in the current term but unlike you, I'm actually thinking of a solution to fix it.  

Unless you're suggesting that the Ministries for Military Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Internal Affairs and Recruitment and Citizenry be manned by one person as well, though I doubt that such a radical and, dare I say it, nonsensical idea will gain much traction.

16 minutes ago, Aleister said:

If Arotania is going to be inevitably pursuing the responsibilities of the Minister of World Assembly Affairs, then shouldn't Arotania be running for Minister?

I've addressed this already in the OP, but I'll repeat it for your benefit: I've asked Arotania if they're interested in running the ministry. They've made it clear that they don't want that kind of responsibility. I've asked if they'd be prepared to share responsibility. They said that they would be prepared to do so. If you're really keen on getting Arotania to run on their own rather than as part of a joint ticket then go ahead and try to persuade them.

19 minutes ago, Aleister said:

You intend on delegating the responsibilities of your job, including your additional ideas for your role, to Arotania as described above.

None of the responsibilities outlined in the Manners will be delegated. Some additional responsibilities will be, yes; is delegation of less vital functions to assistants disallowed in TWP? Someone better tell Foreign Affairs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between cooperating with others in the region and working with others directly as part of the same Ministry and running on a platform of pawning off your responsibilities to others. I will likely work with others in the region directly who would like to work within the Ministry to accomplish the goals I've set out. No, I haven't created a "contingency plan", because I am not running on a platform of inherent inactivity, like you my friend.

Given that you've weakly fulfilled only one of your responsibilities outlined in The Manners, delegation is likely the only thing we could hope for, if you were to be elected for another consecutive term. You're attempting to address concerns that were apparent across this most recent term, yet have only decided to address them during this campaign cycle. You've had a few months to do that.

No one has claimed that Ministries should be ran by one person and one person only. But given your acknowledgement, several times now, of the inactivity that you will bring to this term, one can only see where the responsibilities of the position will fall and that's in the lap of your assistant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Aleister said:

There's a difference between cooperating with others in the region and working with others directly as part of the same Ministry and running on a platform of pawning off your responsibilities to others.

The only responsibilities being 'pawned off' are responsibilities that I myself am introducing. I fail to see your issue with that. If I were saying 'the assistant will fulfil every duty of the minister' then that'd be one thing, but you're attacking a strawman here.

19 minutes ago, Aleister said:

I will likely work with others in the region directly who would like to work within the Ministry to accomplish the goals I've set out.

So it's fine for you to involve new members in the ministry but not for me? How is what you're suggesting different from what I'm suggesting?

20 minutes ago, Aleister said:

No, I haven't created a "contingency plan", because I am not running on a platform of inherent inactivity, like you my friend.

If, while running for a RL office, I pledge to create a contingency plan in case of an earthquake, does that mean that I'm running on a platform of 'there's definitely going to be an earthquake'? I wouldn't think that the idea of 'better safe than sorry' would be such a controversial one. Apparently, it is.

22 minutes ago, Aleister said:

Given that you've weakly fulfilled only one of your responsibilities outlined in The Manners

Your reasoning being?

24 minutes ago, Aleister said:

You're attempting to address concerns that were apparent across this most recent term, yet have only decided to address them during this campaign cycle. You've had a few months to do that.

If, as you say, these concerns were over the past couple of weeks, how did I have 'a few months' to address them? :blink:

25 minutes ago, Aleister said:

No one has claimed that Ministries should be ran by one person and one person only.

Why are you so opposed to the idea, then? You say that you're going to bring in new members; I'm actively trying to bring one in now as we speak! (Plus, I meant what I said when I stated that I'd be more than happy for you to join in the event that I won)

26 minutes ago, Aleister said:

But given your acknowledgement, several times now, of the inactivity that you will bring to this term, one can only see where the responsibilities of the position will fall and that's in the lap of your assistant.

Yes, because I've definitely stated for a fact that I'm going to bring inactivity. Except I haven't. I have pledged to be more active and have offered a concrete proposal of how I'm going to assure that. Stop twisting my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you seem to be missing the point.

There is a difference between involving others in the Ministry and literally running on a platform to hand-off the responsibilities that are yours and yours alone to another person.

You can nitpick my words sentence by sentence, but clearly you are oblivious to the overall picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aleister said:

Again, you seem to be missing the point.

There is a difference between involving others in the Ministry and literally running on a platform to hand-off the responsibilities that are yours and yours alone to another person.

You can nitpick my words sentence by sentence, but clearly you are oblivious to the overall picture.

If you're not going to bother to respond to any of my points, why are you even trying to debate me? You can make false statements about how I intend to do absolutely nothing while my assistant does all the work, but a lie repeated often does not become truth.

Also, if responding point-by-point is considered 'nitpicking', I'd hate to see you actually try to pick apart a resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think running as a team has plenty of merit for a number of reasons which SoG has outlined and was certainly a clear option when the Manners was set out, again for the very reasons outlined.  Perhaps your running mate Arotania can make a contribution to the campaign thread and broaden the dialogue to your advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning!

Well, this got lively quickly.

Before I get to my motivations and thoughts I want to clarify the timeline of the nascence of this campaing idea to avoid anyone potentially getting a wrong impression. @States of Glory initially contacted me shortly after he first declined his nomination in the nomination thread. As mentioned above he asked me if I would run, I declined but mentioned that I could imagine taking up an assistant role. He asked me how I felt about a joined ticket which I agreed to. This all happened before anyone else was publicly nominated. This campaing is an active proposal intended to build and improve on the work that has been done in the three preceding terms by SoG.

Now what motivates me in all of this? I have been a resident of TWP for the past two years (basically my whole NS career). My activity centers around the RMB and the forums, both on-site and here. On both forums I take part in World Assembly discussions, though my personal interests tend to focus more on the General Assembly side. I see the WA ministry as a valuable resource for the region that helps to inform and motivate the delegate's vote (especially with its increased weight thanks to the great recent WA campaign by the Recruitment and Citizenry Ministry, i.e. Badger) as well as those of individual members.

The duties of the WA Minster are outlined in the Manners:

Quote

9. The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs will maintain a presence in the on-site World Assembly forum and off-site TWP forum presenting relevant information to the citizens of The West Pacific. The WA Affairs Minister will be required to present their opinions on all GA and SC resolutions and poll residents to get suggestions as to how the Delegate should vote on resolutions.  This should be completed in the off-site forum before the proposal reaches the floor for voting in the WA.

No one could argue with a straight face that SoG fails to maintain a presence in the on-site World Assembly forum. He also dutifully presents current proposals here, gives his opinion and evaluation and opens them for discussion to poll the opinion of any citizen that is interested in the topic at hand. The quality of SoG's work as Minister is very commendable in my eyes. It is supported by an intimate knowledge of WA matters and proceedings thanks to his thorough involvement in the WA over the span of several years.

Now the critical part is the last sentence. For this it is important to understand that it is extremely difficult to fulfill this for every resolution (hence the 'should'). When no proposal is at vote, a new proposal can reach the voting stage in just a few hours if it is backed by a campaign. Regardless of how active a person is, cases are bound to happen where a vote comes up without the Minister having the chance to present it here. If you factor in taking off for the weekend with the family or a plethora of other possible scenarios, it is outright inevitable.

This is where I come in. If SoG decides to visit GrannySoG for the weekend and a proposal quickly jumps to vote, I can react. I open a thread, give an initial (assistant) assessment and initiate debate where needed. When SoG comes back, having stuffed his belly with GrannySoG's delicious cake over the weekend he doesn't have to pick up all the pieces, delaying the process even further, but can jump right in and form (if still necessary) and present his opinion. This is a case of normal activity, not accident or neglect.

My role is not as a benchwarmer for SoG so that he can cling to this post. SoG has resigned before when it was certain that he couldn't fulfill his duties for a lengthy span of time. I am sure he would do it again. But if his time were preciously limited for a while, it would be an enormous help for him if I just pointed him to the one or two proposals that are relevant at the moment as well as the handful of on-site forum posts that present relevant arguments and opinions. The amount of time saved can be enormous in such an instance. That just by me doing an activity that I normally do anyways, i.e. looking through the forum.

To sum this up - I agreed to this model because I value SoG's expertise in WA matters highly. I am very content with the work he has done for this Ministry that is advisory and informational in nature. So I was concerned when he initially declined the nomination for reasons of possible scarcity of activity. The help of an assistant can easily help bridge such possible gaps. But way more importantly it helps in cases when the WA moves quickly. Now it would have seemed disingenuous if SoG had just run on a platform of maybe wanting to hire an assistant. So we both felt it was a good idea to run on this 'joint ticket' as an open proposal to the region, to demonstrate our commitment to making this model work with at least the two of us on the team. This is intended as a proof of concept built upon the very solid foundation of SoG's exemplary previous work in this ministry.

I am confident in my abilities to fill out this assistant role and that the both of us can provide a proof of concept to improve the Ministry even further, regardless of who runs it in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites