That Called the Vlagh

I would serve as an Arbitor if needed.

Ha

*cough*seems pretty laughable to me*cough* Since that is the measure you set for yourself, that is.

Congratulations.

There isn't any actual animosity in it (at least from my side, and I believe PD's as well), we have just had differing opinions about certain aspects of Gameplay for over a decade give or take and that tends to bleed into every minor disagreement.

Nice platform.

Yes, because popularity contests are always the best measure of actual effectiveness in NS. *rollseyes*

Big Bad Badger

I'm fairly active is a sufficient answer to your question regardless of your intent. If I wasn't active then I would say so. That said, since my answer evidently wasn't clear enough for you, yes, the player behind Pierconium has more than enough time in his schedule to handle the management of The Pacific and the Voice. And, for the record, no deflection has taken place. You attempting to take credit for the activity increase here is laughable, however. Since coming back you have prolonged the naming of the Deputies and missed two deadlines in the Advocate election process. And that is all you have visibly done in the office. I'm not deflecting at all, I am simply pointing out that those living in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.

Except that you are the current Advocate, are running against me for Advocate, and have stated that you doubt my ability to be active enough for the position.I would say that makes your activity levels very relevant when you make such comments. The bottom line is that since you have been 'back' not a lot has actually been done here. And yes, I know a lot goes on behind the scenes but that is sort of the point isn't it? You have a lot going on behind the scenes as a Guardian while the Voice is hit with delays and seemingly a second place priority.

To be fair, I have been more active here since resigning my position than you have been since returning from inactivity. That isn't an insult and may not reflect behind the scenes activity, but you just announced a second delay in the Advocate election process...I'm fairly active.

First, I make no apologies for my positions and I am well aware of my chances in getting elected as Advocate of the Voice. My primary goal in office will be to see the Voice move back towards the Charter as it was written and ratified, with inclusive cooperation between the Union and the Delegacy. I see the Delegate as the ultimate authority within the region, as is supported by the Charter, and I will not be seeking to superimpose the Union above it. I will abolish the Deputy Advocate of Foreign Affairs position and place that back into the realm of Delegate control. We are an offsite government meant to represent an offsite community, it is not in our business to conduct onsite foreign policy. If we wish to take part in the onsite aspect of foreign policy then we should seek to modify the Charter (legally) in order to incorporate further cooperation with the Delegate nation to that end. I will support the foreign policy aims of the Delegate nation as a citizen of TWP, not as a competing head of government. I have no doubts that punkdaddy and simple country can do admirable jobs in the position but the latter has been largely absent for an extended period of time and the former, while currently active, has split loyalties between the offsite community and the onsite 'government' as a Guardian of the region. That is not meant to diminish the role of Guardians at all, or imply that they absolutely can not serve as Advocate, but I believe that in this time of transition a firm separation between the Guardians and the Voice would be best until we determine collectively if we want to pursue a purely offsite governmental policy or insert ourselves (via modification of the Charter in conjunction with the Delegate) into onsite activity. I am happy to answer questions but as I have guests flying in tomorrow they may be sporadically replied to over the next couple of days.

No, I am fine with being a member of the Voice so long as I do not have to reapply for membership. In that case, even though I am well aware of what the outcome will be, I will stand for Advocate. While I have trust that PunkDaddy can do a great job, his commitments as a Guardian would seem to pose a potential conflict of interest in regards to the separation of the offsite government.

This is the first time I have seen this interpretation. I was under the impression that you simply restarted the Voice in spite of URAP. The action that I took had precedent and was not, at least by any measure that can reasonably be utilized in a region without a firm code of laws, 'illegal'. I know I certainly did not do anything that was not within my purview under the prior Delegate. I have been working under the impression that I was no longer in the Voice since I did not vocally support the restart.

You are mistaken. Control of this forum does not belong exclusively to the Voice. The Embassy Row has been around for a very long time and has nothing to do with this 'government' directly. If I chose to start a separate government within this forum and assign my own Foreign Affairs minister to reject the Ambassador from TNP then what? As I have stated elsewhere, this nonsense of the offsite government taking control of traditional Delegate authority does nothing but set up a future coup or rogue Delegate. Ignoring the authority of the Delegate is foolhardy and telling the other feeders that the Delegate is simply a figurehead in regards to Foreign Policy is a mistake.

Congratulations. Delegate appointed positions separate from the offsite government have not ended well here lately but hopefully you will find it better suited than that last guy.

So I saw this today: http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/64-the-north-pacific/?p=37477 (bold mine) So is this how we are doing things now? A fellow feeder sends an Ambassador to the attention of the Delegate and we announce to them that the Delegate has no authority in Foreign Affairs? As far as I am aware, the Voice is just one possible offsite government here and not necessarily the only default government. The Ambassador from TNP did not specify that he was here for the offsite government but was clear that he was directed to the Delegate. I just want clarification (preferably from the Delegate-elect) about this and to know if this is indeed how TWP is going to operate moving forward.

8. Yes, I believe this was the intent. 9. I believe each new Advocate can establish his/her own protocols for appointments. 10. Not really. If a member of the Voice motions for the removal of the Advocate and 2/3 support the motion then the Advocate is removed. One would assume the Advocate would fall in the 1/3 opposition portion. 11. Yes, this is unclear.

No worries.

Yes, I think removing the language around the Guardians would benefit the situation. Also, I do see you point regarding the action by the Delegate after the fact regarding treaties, but you go on to define a separation between Delegate treaties and Voice treaties which (to me) implies that Voice's could exist without the Delegate's approval, which I do not believe is within the spirit or wording of the Charter.

Do you have affiliation with the nation Federated European Nations in The Pacific? I'm just curious because you use the same avatar, have similar names and mottos and both belong to the WA (reported btw). You also seem to have applied for citizenship there claiming that to be your primary nation/region.

What it also seems to do is allow the Voice to enter into treaties and wars separate from the Delegate, which is expressly against what the Charter states. Also, why would a Guardian need to be in the Voice to propose an opposition to the Delegate? And when you state 'as recognized by them' within that clause are you stating that the Advocate must recognize the Guardian?

Calm down son. 1. If the new 'status quo' is that TWP is now basically going to be TNP-lite (because let's face it, even TNP lets their Delegate appoint the Ministers and have executive oversight) then that is just something you will all have to do without me. Which is something you and others are obviously fine with since you have made your opinions about me more than clear several times. 2. I am fairly certain I posted the dissolution statement in public. I am also certain that it had precedent and if the Delegate had not been a spineless weasel would have carried forward just fine. As I have stated many times, you and those like you that support this sort of mentality, are doing nothing but setting up future rogue Delegacies. Not every Delegate is just going to bend over and take it because a minority offsite group whines. 3. You misunderstand. The Charter states that the Voice can enter into treaties only with the approval of the Delegate. These procedures outline a completely separate system of treaties from those that the Delegate may or may not support.

I am perfectly calm, thank you for your concern. It is unwarranted and unappreciated. I find this comical coming from someone that passive-aggressively insulted the admins earlier in this thread by asking if they are all on vacation. Perhaps it is you that should 'calm down'? It does not matter what he may or may not be trying to do, having random people pop up in the admin threads and start making requests for forum configurations and names is not helpful to those running the boards. Also, the judiciary has not been a part of the Voice and is therefore not applicable. Eluvatar is not even apparently a member of the Voice, as neither am I, so making forum change requests on its behalf seems a bit premature considering that the Judiciary has not been in use since March.

Apologies to the admins for making a discussion comment here...but, why? You are not authorized, from any post that I have been able to find, to make these changes.