thread annouced

helps if you pay attention to your job before resigning... :unsure: edit: iPosted this after iResigned as Ambassador, in case you are wondering about the sentence before this sentence.

Do I have permission to ask a question?

:yes:

TG me if you rather.

No need for a tg - I just didn't want to put you on the spot if you weren't prepared - I don't want to upset the sovereignty of your embassy.

My questions aren't controversial, there just informative in nature. I haven't followed TSP or any other region very closely for quite some time, and as such, I'd like some background.

My recollection was that the "rule" in TSP was that you had to declare your intention to run before becoming delegate, and then a "campaign" would take place.

My questions are as follows:
1. Does the above rule still exist?
2. If so, did CR ever publicly declare his intention to run?
3. If so, did some form of open campaign take place where others were also encouraged to seek the delegacy to make this look truly democratic?
4. If so, who else was running?
5. If not, does anyone view CR's "Coronation" as a problem?

Thx.

Oh, and before I forget, also send Shaft my best wishes.

1. Yes

2/3/4. CR is the second highest person on the endorsement list. He has not, to my knowledge (and double checking the "Brave little toaster declarations on the delgate sub-forum), declared his willingness to run for the delgacy before this. According to Slacker, this is not the cabinet appointing CR to the post, it just so happens that he has the second most number of endorsements at the time of htz3/shaft stepping down. No one else is running. The next country after CR is Eutocracy, who does not participate on the TSP forum. He does have an account on the forum, but has never posted.

5. Yes.

So your saying that TSP's Cabinet did not at any time lead a coordinated effort to ensure that a trusted, government-friendly person was second in line to the delegacy on the off chance that the Shaft were to step down suddenly, and that it is simply a happy coincidence that CR happened to have the second most endorsements?

Secondly, by stating that the Shaft is "stepping down", is he leaving TSP to allow his endorsements to be wiped clean, or is he staying put and simply allowing CR to simply pass him in endorsements? If its the latter, how does this exempt CR from the "brave little toaster declarations" process? Forgive me if there are simple answers to these questions - I'm not overly familiar with the processes anymore.

Also, you've suggested there are some people who are concerned with this process. What are some of the naysayers saying? What alternative solutions have they suggested, if any?

As a cabinet member of the SP, I should be able to shed some light on your questions Bweezy

In the South Pacific, we have generally assigned a person as a 'second'. This person is generally regarded as the person who would step in in the event the delegate stepped down and or give us a leg up if an invasionary force tried to come in. I can't find the thread but CR was given this position and will appoint another person to this position when he becomes delegate. This doesn't bar nations from running-it just ensures smooth transition in the event that the delegate needs to step down.

He is going to allow CR to overtake him.

He was selected by Htz to be Htz's second a few months ago. It's actually how Htz became delegate when LadyRebels stepped down.

I haven't heard about any naysayers to CR's appointment. CR has been the SoFA and until he accepted this position was going to serve in the Intel department. I think the region is very excited that he will become the next delegate.

This is one of the issues about the SP that I have a problem with. Let me start by saying that Caer Rialis is very capable and will do a fine job as delegate. Since I have been involved in the SP, he would have always been my first choice if I had one vote and one vote only.

That being said however.....my problem is that the gen pop of the SP had no say so in the Shaft becoming delegate or in CR becoming delegate. Delegates are not elected in the SP, regardless of what they say...they are appointed. Luckily, in this case, I do not think they could have appointed a better delegate.

Thank you for the responses punk d. Now, please indulge me with a few more questions, just so I have the story clearly set out in my own head:

1. I now understand that TSP's government has a policy of ensuring that a nation that is acceptable to the sitting government is the no.2 endorsed nation. Is this "Vice Delegate" position ever open for a formal election or decision amongst the people of TSP, or is the decision to manipulate endorsements in favour of a chosen Vice Delegate one that is made behind closed doors without public consultation?

2. Is there a provision in your Charter or other law which specifically exempts the person with the second most amount of endorsements from having to declare their intention to seek the delegacy under certain circumstances?

Allow me to interject here, Bweezy.

You are referring to the Martial Law Statutes of the South Pacific in your questioning. More precisely to the clause reading:

As I read this statement, I can see the intent of the law, to provide security to the South Pacifc from invaders. The method is to set a point at which someone must state whether or not they are seeking the delegacy. A simple 'yes, I wish to be delegate' or 'No, I do not wish to be delegate' is what suffices. It does not set a cap for endorsements, as has been seen in some regions, nor does it require a periodic election for the delegacy, as other regions have tried.

When I reached 70% of the delegate LadyRebels total, I made my declaration. I was amassing endorsements, not to unseat the delegate, but to provide security to the region. As I am a known quantity, and my loyalty to the South Pacific is unquestioned, I was urged to take this path. I did so, and met all the conditions of the law.

More recently, when it became apparent to the Shaft that rt issues would prevent him from serving as delegate to the best of his ability, I was informed that he was to step down. As the second highest endorsement earning in the South pacific, it fell on me to become delegate. I did not seek the position; I am not sure I want the position. But, one thing is for sure: I am loyal to my region and will fight tooth and nail for it. That said, if my region does not wish me to become delegate, all UN nations have the right and privilege to withdraw their endorsement of me. I of course abide by their decision.

Liarg,

I have never claimed that the office of the Delegate in the South Pacific was an elected positon through off-site board legislation. You have to remember that in the NS system, the delegate is chosen through UN endorsements. One can certainly become the delegate of a region and never participate in the off-site boards. I realize you wish for either an election for delegate, as has been done in the West Pacific and the former process in the North Pacific, but here the pair of us have to agree to disagree. I personally do not think that off-site elections for the delegacy in a feeder region can work in regions in which only 50-60 people vote.

Would you prefer a referendum on the delegacy?

Back to you, Bweezerino :P

Acceptable in that such a person is loyal to the region. The region, Bweezy, not the government. The Martial Law statutes were established for security's sake. If one hoped to win the delegacy and not participate with that group which did their best to sustain the region and help it thrive, would certainly run afoul of the system. Those who simply disagreed with the system would be allowed to state their case and seek the Delegacy.

In all cases in which individuals are asked to amass endorsements, it is to provide security to the region. When I was asked to begin building my total (March 2004) my only position was that of ambassador to the East Pacific.

I am unclear as to your point on manipulating endorsements.

No, as stated above.

Thanks for the background on the law. I did not realize how broadly the martial law was written and how easy it was to comply with it (I assumed it was a hard 70% cap).

This still brings me back to one of my most recent questions, which I don't think was really answered:

Punk d stated that the TSP government ensures that there is a viable alternative that has the second most endorsements in TSP. That being said, is there ever some sort of open "election" for the coveted spot of "Vice Delegate" or of "Delegate in Waiting", or is the government decision to try to prop up a Vice Delegate of its choosing strictly made behind closed doors, without any overt notice to the public and to those who read the TSP forums?

Also, in answering the question or commenting on it, no one need make any value judgments about the TSP system. I personally don't care whether it is termed as "security" or "an old boys club" - that's really irrelevant to me, so both sides of that debate can save their breath. I am asking the question for the sole purpose of ascertaining the level of public consultation made in the "Vice Delegate" process in order to satisfy my own idle curiosity.

There is no open election for the person with the second highest endorsement total. As for government action on the person with the highest total, the delegate simply views those with high endorsement totals and looks to the ways in which such a person has participated in NS and in the game.

Not in the SP,,,because if you do not participate on the boards , you will be ejected under martial law.

Technically Liarg you are correct.

However, as you are aware as a person approaches the 70% who has not declared, they are sent telegrams advising them of the law and asking that they post their intent on our boards.

They could just TG whomever sent them this telegram, but the law is there for a reason. Once they register on the boards their IP and e-mail can be checked the the TSP's and other sources to make sure the person isn't a hostile force.

If those checks pass and they are a resident of the TSP...it's quite possible they could make one post on the off-site boards and attain the delegacy with no involvement on the regional off-site forums.

Bweezy, here's my understanding of the 'second' as we call it. Generally the person is chosen and the cabinet reviews the person. If there are no objections that person is then asked to start gathering endo's...again as a security measure.

As for public debate, there are so many varied opinions among the cabinet, I think asking them is a good lithmus test for whomever is chosen.

I'll go one further

You are incorrect, Liarg. Punk D has it correct. All who approach the 70% margin are telegrammed and given clear instructions to make their post. In my time I have never seen anyone who has not been telegrammed not appear on the off-site boards to decalre their intent one way or the other.

Liarg, what would you prefer...that all regions end a system of off-site boards?

okeedokes. That covers all of my questions. Thanks to Mav, Punk d and Karyelistan for indulging me.

I am not saying that the SP way is not a good method of government. I just want the SP to stop acting like they are so democratic and call the government what it is. (Whatever it is?)

By government, do you mean the system in which the Shaft and, ultimately, in time, God willining, maybe, I, become delegate? This would be a constitutional monarchy because, as each delegate of the SP has shown since LR first became delegate back in the late summer of 2003 herself willing to hold the law of the region paramount, that is, subject to the law herself.

We have an elected government in the SP, a government which is the servant of the Council. The Delegate also serves the Council.

Now, before you claim that such a system is not democratic, consider whether or not the rt United Kindom is democratic or not.

Or ask if the nation of Canada is democratic, for that matter (the Governor General, the Queen's representative to Canada, is technically our head of state, not the elected Prime Minister).

The fact of the matter is that the Head of State, under any Constitutional Monarchy, is not democratically elected. This is contrary to a Democratic Republic, which is the system in place in the US that Liarg evidently prefers (and, to be honest, I prefer as well).

The difference between a Constitutional Monarchy and TSP is that if the delegate so chooses, he/she has the ability to wield or abuse some power (as we've seen in TNP recently), whereas a monarch under the British Parliamentary System realistically does not - the role is symbolic, and any attempt to rule like a monarch would result in the monarchy being tossed out like last week's trash.

So, while I see the Constitutional Monarchy comparison, the TSP isn't quite one of those either. I'd suggest TSP is more of a benevolent dictatorship. Essentially, the delegate must willingly cooperate with the democratically elected counsel, as the delegate has powers that only he or she can exercise (World Factbook updates, delegate UN vote, ejections, etc.).

If TSP's democratically elected government is to have any power, the benevolent dictator/delegate has to "play along" with their wishes.

This isn't really any different than any other region, I suppose. All delegates, whether truly democratically elected, or whether groomed into the position quasi-undemocratically by the sitting powers in the delegate's chair and off-site government, must play along with the off-site government. The only difference is that some regions have fewer barriers to prevent anyone from becoming delegate.

For instance this region has no real rules that I know of - if you get the most endorsements, you get elected. Other regions have endorsement quotas, or notice systems, or a group of government insiders who ensure that the top two or three "delegates in waiting" are part of the same friendly regime (or a combination thereof).

If fewer barriers means greater democracy, then some regions are more democratic than others.

My personal view is that in a game with 12,000 regions, if you don't like the rules of your current region, you can feel free to move to one of many others which I'm sure tickle your fancy. If too many people are leaving a once large region, then either they should change or die (or in the case of the five feeder regions, they wont' die, but may be rendered more ineffective and less relevant).

Sorry for the digression on this point. That sort of just happened by accident. And because I think I'm brilliant, I've decided to post my thoughts. I'm also very humble too. ^_^

I never claimed that the UK was democratic.

Just forget it.....it does not matter what I think anyway.

I've responed to Liarg here:

http://invisionfree.com/forums/NationState...?showtopic=2650

(I didn't want to further encumber TSP's embassy with my responses, since they are now off topic and likely a nuisance)