So what do I bring to the table?

• Scripting knowledge. My endorsement script is an example of that, and 2.0 is coming out pretty soon, which should be able to detect voter blocks.
• Loyalty to NS Canada. I am first and for most a Canadian, and have been since I joined NS Canada. My allegiances are known and unquestioned.
• An experienced politician, and have already been entrusted Admin powers when I was MoRA.
• Having working in a number of Ministries, voting for me should bring closer integration with Canada’s other departments, tightening security
• I am respectful and mindful of the balance between freedom and security. You will never have to worry about me eroding the liberties of Canada to combat phantom threats.
• I will work to reform the Dogs of War organization into the less dramatically named Canadian Defense Force, and have it as a creditable and useful block of UN nations dedicated to regional sovereignty. This includes block endorsing, policies.
• Work on revamping the CIA, increasing membership, and encouraging the flow of information into Canada.

I think that you will agree that I bring unique skills and qualifications to the position. Please consider me for Minister of Defense (or Defence. Whichever, really :P).

I would love to answer any of your questions, if you have them now.

I think you have very strong qualifications and have done a good job outlining them for the voters.

While you have touched on some of this I would like to present you with the same questions I asked the other candidate:

Do you see Canada ever being involved in a defensive action that does not directly involve our region?

Do you feel the Dogs of War Alliance still serves a role in region?

How do you feel the Hudson Bay Doctrine relates to the activities of the MoD? http://invisionfree.com/forums/NationState...p?showtopic=793

What is your feeling about providing the Cabinet with regular "current state of NS" reports? (if you do) How often would you provide them?

Do you think that Canadian ambassadors have a role in gathering intelligence for the Cabinet and/or MoD?

With the recent discussion of intelligence infiltration of governments; what checks and processes would you add to prevent the MoD, its' self, from being infiltrated?

I do not. I believe very strongly that Canada is a neutral region. Bring involved in "defensive" actions in other regions can only weaken our nation. There are too many possible adversaries, so the old adage that "the best defense is a good offense" is categorically untrue in Nationstates.

As it stands, I don't think that it does. I've been a member for a long time, and I have received orders or policy. I'm not really sure if the organization has clear objectives. I plan to change that, by having endorsement policies, and exploring other uses for the organization. I also think that changing it's name to the more accurate "Canadian Defense Forces" will reduce the number of miscommunications about it's purpose. Like I like Shakespeare as much as the next man...

Very positive. I think that alliances are almost exclusively a bad thing for Canada. I never really "got" why some regions seem to like going to war or creating international incidents at the drop of a hat. Canada is a more responsible region, and we should never be the ones to create or provoke hostilities, and as part of an alliance, we could be forced to.

What is your feeling about providing the Cabinet with regular "current state of NS" reports? (if you do) How often would you provide them?
Positive, as long it doesn’t compromise security. Certainly working with the MoRA to provide more in-depth information about Canada and our friends is something that I can do.

Ambassadors should certainly be pushing commonly information from a region to Cabinet and the CIA. But they have to balance this with the fact that they are official representatives from Canada, and so their actions reflect on the region as a whole. They should not be too pushy when asking for information, and should never EVER be involved in any sort of intrigue.

Well, background checks are important. IP checks on candidates are pretty critical, as is using Canada’s intelligence network to ask questions. But I have to be honest with you: no matter what checks the MoD puts in place, there will always be a way to circumvent them. The best we can do it make it more difficult/unlikely that a rogue candidate will get in.

The most important weapon is voter awareness. If you don’t know a person and don’t trust them: don’t vote for them. With your vote, you are giving power to people that could potentially ruin the entire forum. Ask questions.

Right on! -- hmmm I mean -- thanks for responding to my questions. I hope others will voice any concerns they have.

I would like to add that I've never felt that Canada is, or should be, neutral. I feel we should be pro-democracy. I'm not speaking of military support but other than that we should offer any support we can provide to other democracies. Directly related to that is working to make our regional opposition known regarding non-democratic activites in otherwise democratic regions (while striving to strike a balance to not get involved in the domestic activites of other regons).

Would you please expand on what you mean by "neutral"?

If a routine IP check, or a piece of intelligence from another region reveals to you the possibility of an enemy infiltration, what steps would to take to verify/rectify the situation?

I feel there is a weak point in the current way ministers, with admin privileges, sometimes select their deputies. While asking for volunteers is a good way to get fresh people involved in the workings of government I'm not totally comfortable with that approach when the potential for someone to have admin access is involved.

Do you have in mind who you would like to be your deputy? How do you foresee filling the deputy position should you win election?

Neutral in the sense that we aren't a part of overarching organization. Neutral in the sense that Canada alone shall determine Canada's policy. I'm not saying that we should not take stands on issues as a region, but I don't think that we should take stands based on dogma laid out by another region. I refuse to let Canada be endangered because someone in some other region had a bad day at the office and wanted to start some drama. I don't mean neutral as in "opinion less", I mean neutral as in "unbiased".

The Ministry of Defense should not have the power to convict any citizen of anything without due process. If the Ministry finds creditable evidence, then this needs to be passed on to the Ministry of Justice and the public, in my opinion. It would only be in the case that an individual refused to comply with the findings of Justice that it would become a Defense issue again.

Currently, even though more than one person has asked to be the DMoD if I was elected, I have not made a choice yet (nor have I been elected yet :P).

I will first and foremost be looking that the qualifications, including existing political experience. This means that I will be asking for a little more that "I'll do it" in the DMoD thread. Clearly, my own judgments on how trustworthy the person is will come into play. I will also post my top candidate before officially picking them, in order that the public is able to give me feedback on the appropriateness of my pick. I feel that this public approach to selection will ensure that the region is comfortable with the DMoD.

Bravo Daemon. Bravo for running. :clapping:

Yeah! Go, Daemon! ^_^

:clap: :clap:

Check it out Daemon, im flying your banner B)

What took ya? :P

no idea to be honest. guess i figured id just put all the banners on there.

Yay! By the way, big nods to TV for being my banner source.

yeah, he does good work

Daemon being the only candidate running for MoD will be acclaimed MoD for the next term.

Congratulations.

Thank you, though there is something bittersweet about winning by acclamation.

Hmmmm bittersweet....
is it chocolate? :P

I understand what you mean. There is something about a sense of competition and the discussion of new values that always makes elections seem important.

I'm also dissapointed that there will be four acclaimed ministers. I'm confident in their abilities but It would've been more interesting to have a heated up campaign.

I agree completely C6. Maybe next time around more people will throw their hats in the running.