Action. Accountability. Aivintis.

The former Delegate took to the stage like a fish to water. His white poet shirt stood out against his crimson vest and blazer – the colors of Lerasi, his lost empire. Behind him, his campaign slogan dominated the screen – “Action. Accountability. Aivintis.” His ornate Vizier’s sword hung comfortably from his hip and despite the clashing colors, his medal from the Order of the Golden Ocelot hung proudly from his neck. Even without a microphone, his voice filled the arena.

My fellow East Pacificans. It is an honor to be before you today once again seeking the Delegacy of The East Pacific. It was in this month, three years ago, that I was first entrusted with the highest office in the land. I was younger then, more naïve and less experienced. Now, I come to you after proving myself as a leader across this region. I come to you because I believe it is my duty to do my part in building a new era of East Pacifican politics.

First, I’d like to touch on my qualifications for this office. I don’t often indulge in tooting my own horn, but I think it’s important to let you all know what I have to offer, so please permit this quick overview of my career. I’ve written 56 EPNS articles, more than any other, as well as 26 UTEP essays, and 62 legislative proposals. I’ve negotiated 10 treaties, authored 4 WA resolutions, processed 47 citizenship applications, alterations, and audits, answered 11 Judicial Reviews and Advisory Questions, and handed down 19 Executive Orders.

I have held four Minister positions – two of which I’ve held twice – and have five years of cabinet and foreign council experience under my belt. I have fought for sensibility, unity, and the underdog for six years – during the coup, the residents’ rights debate, the Concrisis, and more. I am the first and only person to serve as a branch leader for all four branches of government and I bring a cosmopolitan view. I have years of UCR experience in executive, legislative, judicial, and security branches on top of my GCR experience in the same.

But enough talking about my past. Let’s talk about my future and how I would serve you once again as Delegate.

The lit screen behind him shifted, revealing the next slide of his presentation. The format of the title slide was followed exactly, except the campaign slogan was replaced with a new one: “Leadership Philosophy.”

I am here to support my Ministers. As Delegate, I intend to basically serve as everyone’s Deputy Minister. They set the agenda, they do their job largely independent of me, but I lend a hand. I’ll contribute monthly to UTEP and EPNS, join in on planning cultural events, and help with recruitment efforts. Part of why so many Ministries tend to struggle so much is because the Minister’s all on their own. The Delegate’s job is to make sure no Ministers are alone in this.

As both servant and supervisor, it is very important to maintain a strong communication between me and the ministers. To that end, I want to implement monthly reports where Ministers share their goals for the next month and their progress on last month’s goals. That way, we can have open, regular dialogue on how I can best support them in those goals and what adjustments we may need to make together based on my campaign platform or any changing circumstances.

As their deputy and as the the face of the executive, I think I also need to play a strong role in recruiting. Something that contributed to my burnout as Chancellor and Editor-in-Chief was the burden placed on me with little to no institutional support. As Delegate, I want to make sure no Minister experiences that. I think one person should personally DM every single new applicant in the Join the Executive channel, and I think the Minister and I should work together on measurable goals for each staffer, such as one news article or UTEP essay a month, something humble but helpful.

The monthly check-ins with my Ministers will serve an additional purpose in informing my Delegate’s Update in EPNS. This currently exists, but in a very limited form. Anyone who’s seen my work in EPNS knows that I do not hold back on detail – my own Grand Vizier Address was often longer than the Delegate’s Update in past EPNS editions – and more detail means more transparency from the Executive government. I would also encourage Ministers to write their own monthly articles if they’d like. Arleat did a good job at this as Secretary of Endorsement Affairs and I occasionally wrote in EPNS about UTEP, so there’s some precedent for this.

In the Cabinet, I also value diverse perspectives. I don’t want any situation where I find myself in an echo chamber. Consensus demands dissent. I wish to create unique adviser roles to fill with representatives of different ideologies and ideas on top of keeping meritocracy at the core of the Minister appointment system. For example, a Vizier as a security adviser, a Magister as a legislative adviser, a roleplay adviser from Valsora and/or Urth, and any other perspectives I believe are necessary to a holistic, consensus-based approach to leadership.

The next slide of his presentation revealed itself as the Vizier-Magister ran a hand through his hair and took a quick sip of water. The slide read, “World Assembly Policy.”

When it comes to the World Assembly, I believe we should be taking different approaches to the General Assembly and Security Council. We suffer from a lack of interest in the World Assembly as well as a strong shortage of interested staffing. For this reason, we tend not to see much activity in the WA Commission and therefore very few and very uninformed voters in our polls. For that reason, I support the shift Cretox has been pushing to return to a more Council-based decision-making format, with more involved conversation and more exclusive voting.

However, I think Security Council matters should remain up to the Delegate. Personally, I have a lot of WA experience, as a three-time SC author, a one-time GA co-author, and a thirteen-time IFV author for Commissioner Albrook. I know the standards and rules for proposals, I know what a good one looks like, and I know what a bad one looks like. More importantly, my five-year experience with Foreign Affairs allows me to handle sensitive NSGP proposals with a balanced perspective.

Due to all of this, I would commit to a split policy on the WA. On GA proposals, a council will discuss and vote upon each proposal and submit a recommendation that I will always follow. On SC proposals, the Cabinet will take the place of this council, where my WA Commissioner/Minister, FA Minister, and any relevant advisers will help me choose whether or not to support an SC Resolution. I will prioritize voting in favor of well-written C/Cs for members of allied and partnered regions, because I believe we should treat regions as we’d like to be treated, as simple as that.

I would also want to talk to interested WA staffers about if they’d ever like to author resolutions themselves. Between me, Gem, Cretox, Wallenburg, and AMOM, we have a very eclectic mix of experienced resolution authors in TEP, who I want to mobilize as an advisory force to support a strong TEP presence in the WA. I never felt much support from my region when I was authoring resolutions, so a formal advice network and the full supportive weight of our Foreign Affairs Ministry can be transformative in an up-and-coming author’s career. There’s a lot of TEPers in need of recognition and I want to make them happen – with a lot of support and no stamps needed.

The next slide comes into view, reading, “Foreign Policy.”

I’d like to start off my FA section with an affirmation that I am committed to East Pacifican unalignment. There was a recent incident where an ally of ours got entangled with another region, kicking off a huge scandal, and I was not satisfied with internal discussions about it. Let me be clear – it is not The East Pacific’s place to interfere in the affairs and squabbles of our allies OR our ‘enemies’ and I will preserve our unalignment in the military sense as well as in a political sense.

I would also like to see some progress with regions who we may not have very positive relations with. In my term, I reached out to the West Pacific for reconciliation, two years after our treaty broke down. Now, after another three years, I’d like to reach out again. I’d also like to pursue relations with the Outback, which currently has a lot of membership overlap with the West. I plan to continue working with the Plains of Perdition and consider further talks with the League & Concord and The North Pacific to build back some bridges.

Moving from policy to structure, I wish to reevaluate the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In recent administrations, the Delegate and Minister have both been very top-down leaders, which is absolutely their right, but has cheapened the strength of the FA Council as a decision-making institution. Once upon a time, consensus from this Council was as strong as the word of a Delegate, and the Delegate followed their expert advice. Now, that’s changed. However, we’ve also seen downturns in Council activity and a very different Executive environment to when the Council was initially developed.

I wish to merge the FA Council as it stands with Cabinet, cutting down on members if needed. This means appointing a few Foreign Affairs Advisers out of existing Councilors, but also allowing different perspectives to chime in – Culture, World Assembly, Military, etc. The FA Council, in years past, has pretty much acted like this, simply in a different channel and with more members, but since membership is declining, I think this change can be sustainable. It was also born in a period where we had a cabinet leak, which is no longer a concern, so I think this could bring new vitality to strong FA decisions.

I also want to reintroduce the FA Watch. The Foreign Affairs Minister abolished this channel out of concerns that ‘just’ talking about interregional developments didn’t bring value. However, I disagree. I think sharing opinions is how we all learn from each other and build a democratic culture. Activity is how we measure government success. It’s also a great, low-effort opportunity to train future leaders. Certain low-priority decisions can also be relegated to the Watch – as has been planned in the past – to democratize a lot of our diplomatic process in a controlled and effective manner.

The presentation shifted again, the next slide reads, “Military Policy.”

Moving to the realm of EPSA, I’m going to admit that my stance has changed recently. If you asked me a few months ago what I wanted to see out of EPSA I would have said that I want to reduce it to a piler force for allied Delegate transitions and defenses as well as antifascist griefing raids. That’s it. However, I’ve recently seen a promising shift that gives me hope that EPSA can return into a world-class military. I am therefore willing to put the time and resources into pushing that.

I want to work with EPSA Commanders on the idea of contracting Viziers to learn how to trigger operations. This is a great way to keep WA-locked veterans involved in the military, but obviously it still requires updaters. I have long held the belief that Valsorans are our biggest pool for recruitment to EPSA, given their military inclinations in roleplay, and I want to work with my Admiral to pursue that and bring a few RMBers into EPSA. We did it before and we can do it again. New soldiers can also chat about FA in the Watch and get introduced to the government through R/D.

While I’m reaffirming our core principles of unalignment, let me also reaffirm some of our other core principles: EPSA will play a very prominent role in griefing problematic regions under my administration, but will not participate in the griefing of innocent regions. We will raid, yes, and keep tagging regions, but we will not upend communities that have done nothing to deserve it. This may block some avenues of working with raider regions, but if it blocks out an organization entirely, then that’s not an organization we should be working with anyway.

He paused for emphasis, feeling energized by the crowd. the next slide reads, “Cultural Initiatives.”

I think the problem with a lot of cultural campaigns is that they get too bold too quickly, so I want to keep it simple. I want to host one Hunger Games a month – which we already do – and then one additional game night each month. Two events a month may seem like very little compared to one or two a week, but it’s still really good comparatively and more importantly, it’s achievable. We had the game night with Lazarus in May, and I do want to see more partnered events even outside of Hunger Games, but we can also do games in the Cafe or the Urth server.

I’d also like to host another Diplomacy game. This is something I’ve wanted to do for some time since Millenhaal introduced TEP to it. I think it fits NS vibes really well and with enough effort I can see it becoming a regular thing. The Diplomacy hobby community is also really significant, so bringing TEP into those spaces can be an easy first step to game expansion – perhaps, after a year or two of working hard and learning the game, TEP can have a presence hosting Diplomacy tournaments that bring interested players to us.

I’ll also put together a task force on exploring other options for game expansion. We’ve been talking about this idea for years and seen no progress on it, so I want to create a channel or thread on discord where any member of the community can participate in discussions on this big change for our future. They can suggest games, Culture can host events where people learn those games, with EPNS or UTEP creating guides, and then the Task Force can discuss how we can extend our community through the use of those games.

But I don’t want to get too ahead of myself. If we set simple short-term goals, we can accomplish them, and we can build off of them slowly and steadily into something great. When I was last Delegate, we didn’t even do Hunger Games, but now we host them constantly and always pull a big crowd with them. We have to just act deliberately. This is also a great way of managing low-level staff. When I was Minister of Culture in 2020, I had a lot of ideas, but not a lot of volunteers, and a lot of things fell through. Reasonable, measurable goals and tasks are how we engage our staff, simple as that.

The presentation moved forward, and the penultimate slide read, “Other Ministries.” The statesman could see the attention of the audience waning.

Alright, we’re almost done, don’t worry.

He smiled and looked back at the screen.

Okay, I know that’s vague, but here’s the deal: Endorsement Affairs, Recruitment, and Outreach are not the flashiest Ministries, and my thoughts on them are pretty simple, so I’ll keep them all to one little section before sharing my closing thoughts.

The Ministry of Endorsement Affairs does not need to exist. As a Vizier, I am a very strong endotarter, and I will keep that going as Delegate. I can make my own dispatches for endorsing me, and EPPS can work to support Vizier endorsements. I don’t see the need for an Executive Ministry solely devoted to this activity, and so I do plan to abolish Endorsement Affairs upon taking office. It also frees up manpower for other Ministries which desperately need it. I’ll note that I do plan on appointing a security adviser who can add to Cabinet discussions on these issues nevertheless.

The Ministry of Outreach, similarly, need not exist. In days past, we had Forum RP and RMB RP Representatives in the Cabinet to share their thoughts on major decisions that may affect each community and brainstorm ways to get them involved. Now, it’s moved to the task of a single office, which has a history of ignoring one subcommunity or another. I want to bring in advisers from both communities to replace the Ministry of Outreach and help us maintain strong representation without risking overcorrection or limited perspectives. It also, once more, frees up dedicated players to work on other tasks, like:

Recruitment! This Ministry is so very important since the Frontier and Stronghold update. I want to appoint a Minister that will make a quick guide on how to recruit, and then I want to have this person work on getting Magisters, Viziers, EPPS Officers, Citizenship Officers, Arbiters, and Ministers all involved in the task of sending manual recruitment telegrams. Especially while boycotting stamps we need to make sure that we have the knowhow and the hands on deck to ensure that The East Pacific doesn’t fall behind compared to other regions. We have a lot of opportunity and we need to be sharing that with prospective residents.

He left no segue or pause before the final slide of his presentation, the one reading “Closing Thoughts,” appeared behind him. Many gathered in Rilannon that day would only pay attention now, so he had to make it count.

Now for what you’ve all been waiting for, a quick overview and summary of how I can and will serve this region as Delegate once more. Here’s the low-down:

  • I plan to act as everyone’s Deputy Minister, picking up tasks that need doing to ease the burden of the entire Cabinet and support everyone in achieving our goals, using simple monthly reports to stay connected and inform a more detailed Delegate’s Update in EPNS.

  • I plan to implement a split policy on the World Assembly that makes Cabinet decisions on the Security Council and community decisions on the General Assembly, while creating an advising force to support WA authorship.

  • I plan to merge the FA Council with the Cabinet through the appointment of multiple FA Advisers, and bring every single Executive perspective into foreign policy, as well as other specialized advisers, like security.

  • I plan to train Viziers in R/D triggering to support EPSA Command and recruit RMBers to the Armada in order to capitalize on a clear interest in military affairs and help support the next evolution of EPSA.

  • I plan to host two events per month, including Hunger Games and others like Diplomacy, that can serve as a springboard for game expansion, which will see its own dedicated task force

  • I plan to devolve the Ministry of Outreach into separate FRP and RMBRP Advising roles and further limit Executive bloat by abolishing Endorsement Affairs, moving staff to more important roles such as increasing Recruitment with detailed guides.

Ultimately, I plan to serve you. Thank you so much for enduring this long speech. I hope I can count on your support to revolutionize the Executive government, but any vote’s a good vote, so don’t forget to turn out next week when polls open. Remember, my fellow East Pacificans: Vote for Action. Vote for Accountability. Vote for Aivintis.

Most of this is a pretty good campaign, but I do have questions about the WA policy specifically, which is your biggest change as far as I can see.

1.For the GA council, will this be a highly selective body or can anyone with a vague interest in the GA join?

  1. Why not make a council for the SC? Will there be an institutionalized way for people to participate in deciding your SC vote without being a part of the Cabinet?

And non-WA:
3. Will you personally reach out to people who you think are good fit for government to get them involved?

It’s definitely meant to be very open – the setting change is more about rewarding discussion with voting power and therefore keeping it to people who can justify their stances.

No – I see the SC as an institution that is fundamentally FA-affiliated. I think the experts in FA, R/D, RP, and region-building should be the ones passing judgment on the validity of accomplishments in those fields and the decision should ultimately heavily based in FA considerations. Leaving it up to everyone is how we got a wing of voters who were anti-everything making decisions for the region that harmed our FA image.

I might reach out to people if they show promising activity in RP or in the Magi, sure, but I don’t intend to make it a huge part of my work, simply because I think we already get enough applicants and we should just be focusing on ensuring those applicants get assigned tasks and see personal attention from Cabinet.

I think the experts in FA, R/D, RP, and region-building

What about the experts who aren’t in the Cabinet?

The goal of adding new topic-specific adviser roles is to ensure that there’s enough experts with enough of a diverse perspective that we still make good decisions. With these roles, I don’t see any reason why we’d see a significant lack of certain voices/perspectives in Cabinet.

That’s not my point. I get that there is not much discussion with the WA and Ipresume thats whats up with these changes, but with the GA Council at least anyone who is interested in the GA for GA’s sake could still help decide the WA vote. Your system for the SC no longer makes it true for the SC, as now someone who could potentially want to get involved in the SC from a TEP perspective no longer can unless they are a part of your Cabinet. To me, that’s an issue.

These are bold and cool ideas I do want to see. I will admit while the open and democratic WA vote was something cool I feel I had a big part in setting up, I do agree there is merit in limiting the deciders where FA and regional considerations do matter, and have always respected FA vetoes for this. While I would not mind a return to a council-decision format, I would still like to keep a discussion space, like the forum without the poll if abolished, such that folks interested in TEP and the WA still have a space to discuss, be inspired, and see the memes.

With the FA Watch returning and it having made it easier than ever for those who want to be politically involved to have a say, I feel it wouldn’t diminish the voice for folks who want to be heard in the WA while still keeping our vote controlled to our security interests.

Sounds like we have different perspectives on this, which is perfectly okay. Where I’m coming from is the fact that TEP proposals failed as a direct result of us voting against certain resolutions – Commend Hulldom and Commend The League chief among them – which were decided by a group of people who were not taking these FA considerations and consequences into result. Our Treaty with TNP and our embassy with TL&C were also closed down the line partially due to these actions as well. I want to stop that from happening again, even if it means certain people don’t take part in the decision. To make up for it, I want to bring more varied voices to the Cabinet to ensure I am casting a vote that is representative of the people – as an elected representative of the people.

That sounds good to me. It can also be the HQ for authorship initiatives, to ensure that those are reaching as many people as possible, as well as a place for authors to answer questions, which we’ve seen happen with some success.

To be honest, if the goal is to have people who know what they are doing when they consider an SC proposal, I feel there are better ways than what you’re currently proposing.

For one, you’re already partially resolving this by moving from voting to discussion, because there’s less to object to when no voting tally exists.

Additionally, you can always take the position that you can vote against the theoretical SC Council as you wish. This isn’t really a new thing and is a principle that exists, albeit one that has been diminished over time by successive Delegates. Preferences vary, but I’d at least much rather have a WA system where more people can participate in the decision making process but the Delegate uses a veto every so often, versus a system wherein the Delegate always listens to a select group of people. Additionally, in a discussion-based system it isn’t really a shock if you veto the consensus as Delegate because you’d have shared your positions, and everyone knows in a discussion space that it is normal for disagreement to exist.

Add to that: not every SC proposal is affected by FA, particularly RPers.

So I still maintain this closes off the SC discussion-decision space needlessly when alternatives exist. I think an existing SC Council that can get overridden by the Delegate for FA matters is feasible, corrects for people “voting” without consideration for FA, but also keeps the SC decision making process open to the region rather than closing it off to a body who 70% probably don’t care about the SC anyways.

I personally find a group decision more democratic than a unilateral veto, and if we can’t trust a body to make a good decision, then we don’t believe that body should have that power in the first place.

When other regions voted against our RP C/Cs, we were upset. I’d argue RPers do have FA concerns attached.

I will mull over the FA Watch idea as discussed in discord and get back to you.

I personally find a group decision more democratic than a unilateral veto, and if we can’t trust a body to make a good decision, then we don’t believe that body should have that power in the first place.

There are sometimes exceptions to the norm but I’ll leave it at that, since I don’t want to be the one who turns your campaign into a debate thread :y

When other regions voted against our RP C/Cs, we were upset. I’d argue RPers do have FA concerns attached.

I didn’t say all RPers, I said RPers in particular - it’s mostly those that have no FA strings attached, which a lot of RPers - esp. non-regional RPers -do not.

I will mull over the FA Watch idea as discussed in discord and get back to you.

okur

This is an interesting campaign, and not a candidacy I expected. I have a couple questions to throw at you, if you don’t mind.

As Delegate, I intend to basically serve as everyone’s Deputy Minister.

This is a great idea in principle, but when you think about it, it starts to fall apart. You note your previous burnout in UTEP and EPNS. We’ve all been there, no shame in it at all. Given this though, and the natural burnout and time constraints every NS’er deals with, how can we be sure you won’t burn out when handling a deputy position for every single ministry, alongside your involvement in FA, putting your time and resources into EPSA, recruiting, writing articles for EPNS, writing UTEP pieces, and doing whatever other tasks often fall upon the Delegate? This just doesn’t seem realistic.

To that end, I want to implement monthly reports where Ministers share their goals for the next month and their progress on last month’s goals.

Previous Delegates, myself included, have tried to work with this premise before. It’s never really provided anything of use, and ended up being unnecessary if you simply kept an eye on what ministers were working on. Why not do away with this and leave it to the minister articles you’ll push for in EPNS, and save the effort of ministers reporting on their activity twice?

In my term, I reached out to the West Pacific for reconciliation, two years after our treaty broke down. Now, after another three years, I’d like to reach out again.

Don’t know how many times this needs to be tried and failed before we as a region get the hint that they just don’t like us. Something something definition of insanity.

In recent administrations, the Delegate and Minister have both been very top-down leaders

This isn’t true. You were in the FA Council my entire delegacy, it was incredibly active, and was consulted with for just about every foreign policy decision I or Altys (then MoFA) made. It was much the same during Altys’ delegacy. It is certainly more true of this administration, but painting it as a long-term decline is misleading.

It was also born in a period where we had a cabinet leak, which is no longer a concern.

This statement flies pretty directly in the face of recent shifts within the region’s security branch. We just had a (recently former) cabinet minister put on trial for treason, and a growing faction in the Praesidium has been hammering home the cries that TEP is ripe for a coup, and that we need to batten down the hatches, take a hard stance on citizenship, ban non-citizens from the magisterium and keep a close eye out for raiders. If all this is true, how are you not at all concerned about the possibility of infiltrators in the executive?

Valsorans are our biggest pool for recruitment to EPSA

Valsorans have repeatedly proven pretty disinterested in taking part in the regional military. Most express a sentiment of wanting little to do with the wider R/D sphere and simply want to be left alone to write their stories. Outside of broad goals, what will you actually do to change the minds of RMB’ers and make service in the EPSA rewarding and interesting?


And a final question, probably my most pressing one.

A month and a half ago you dramatically resigned from the executive and posted a dispatch you described in your own words as “airing dirty laundry”. In it, you blasted the region for harbouring a “culture of pervasive toxicity that has been taking root for years”, and claimed you were ashamed of what this region had become. You have made various accusations of bullying within the executive and seemingly have had zero interest in involving yourself with the regional government and members within it. In your resignation dispatch you noted “I wanted to solve this from inside but I cannot withstand the constant pain that standing against the tide brings.”.

My question is, what has changed so greatly within the last few weeks that has shifted your view 180 degrees, from resigning from everything executive-related and claiming you cannot solve your concerns from the inside, to now running to lead that same executive you so loudly denounced? I mean no malice in my questioning, I know you have your problems with me, but this is genuinely confusing. I’m unsure how I, as a citizen, am expected to place my confidence in a candidate who only a few weeks ago claimed they were ashamed of the region, and wanted nothing to do with its government.

Overall, this isn’t a bad campaign, but I’m not convinced that this platform meaningfully builds on the incumbent administration, and I obviously have further issues as noted above.

Thank you for your time, and good luck.

I burnt out as Minister, not as Deputy Minister. I have not been Deputy Minister – and indeed we have not had Deputy Ministers – for QUITE some time. The idea isn’t to take on everything, it’s to take on a little bit of everything.

FA is a very collaborative, reactive, discussion-based decision making process with a Minister who can take point on any active initiatives very easily due to low workload (it tends to consist of reaching out to new regions or existing relationships to move them up a rung in the ladder of TEP friendship).

EPSA is something that I would primarily assist with thru the Vizier contracting program, something I see as relatively small and recruiting RMBers, which will simply be me saying “X, Y, and Z are active and may be interested in military stuff” to the command to follow up on.

EPNS and UTEP can be one thing a month really easily for me – I just have to put a day or two aside out of the month and that’ll get done for sure. On top of that, the other tasks falling upon the Delegate tend to be a part of that.

As Delegate, as I’m sure you know, you tend to play a role of doing this and that, here and there. It’s mostly reactive, but I want it to be more proactive, and because it’s a lot of this and that, a lot of little things to just boost people up and take something off their plate here and there, I think it’s perfectly realistic.

I’ll also note that I’ll be entering the summer. I do have some summer hours for my job, but it’s less than half of what I work now, and I will not be taking any classes. Part of my burnout was juggling an 18 credit-hour quarter with a 15 hr/wk job and the personal struggles of dealing with a loss in my girlfriend’s family. None of those concerns will be there in the summer.

I honestly don’t expect every Minister to publish in EPNS. I honestly don’t even expect every Minister to have an article-length report. And that’s okay. If it’s article-length, then they can write that article, submit it as their report to me, and post it in EPNS, with no extra writing, but if it’s not, then they should still be talking to me. Yes, if I keep an eye on them – and I will – I’ll know what they’re doing, but for me, it’s incredibly important to see them (a) set goals and (b) reflect on their goals as often as possible.

Things change. It’s okay to not be fully comfortable with TWP – many of their people are not fully comfortable with us – but as a leader it is my place to represent the best interests of the region. We as a region – and TWP – have changed. TWP has elections, now. A fair number of their former high officials have moved to the Outback. It’s a completely different government and environment.

It’s also completely different here. I personally don’t hold a grudge against TWP or even Varanius himself anymore. We had our run-ins in the past, but things have been quiet for a while. We’ve gotten their votes on some things. They’ve gotten ours. We’ve shuffled through three years’ worth of Delegates, Provosts, Grand Viziers, Viceroys, and everything in between. Different cultures and governments will react differently to the same situation, and both our regions have different cultures and governments.

I don’t think it’s a decline at all. There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s just a different style of leadership. To address your point, yes, it’s even more top down in Dead’s delegacy than in yours, but even when I was still in the council, I noticed that there were a lot of decisions being made by the Delegate or Minister rather than the Council itself which, a few years back, would have been unheard of. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it’s not something that fits my personal leadership style, and so I will change it to ensure that the government structure and expectations do complement my own experiences and approaches for the best policy this region can ask for.

Simple: It’s not all true. There are no factions in the Praesidium and there’s no need for widespread panic. We can be cautious, close some loopholes, strengthen some systems, and pass policy that our region democratically agrees to – and even disagree with it if we so please – but I don’t think this is the time for blind fear. In fact, that sort of fear will only be more dangerous to any enemy who wants us destabilized and weak. We have to come together and lead with logic and compassion.

Even though it is not all true, I will address the question, because I think it’s a fair concern. I am wary of infiltrators in the Executive, yes. I am wary that people will try to influence votes and decisions towards what their ideology or their home region wants. But the FA Council is no longer free from this – the last time I was there, it was fiercely divided and I noticed that a lot of personal biases were shining through. The solution to this is more voices and perspectives – which is why I want topic-specific advisers. Maybe I’ll even appoint a Defender adviser and Raider adviser to ensure balance and compromise.

This is news to me. The last time I remember RMBers receiving personal outreach for the military was 2020, when Danelaw, EK, and I were often the only active updaters alongside Atlae and Tretrid, our commanders. If the current or any past administration has tried this and it has failed, I have not been made aware of it.

I think there’s a lot to be said for making your own story in the government as well as in RP. You can be the fearless raider or the stalwart defender, joining in our tags or liberations according to your personal beliefs, or your desire for war. You can be a veteran and rise in the ranks of the government. And even if that doesn’t interest you, it’s fun to play games with your friend – R/D is a game within this game with clear objectives and progress markers. And if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, and we adjust course as we’ve always had to – an apt metaphor for an Armada.

I am ashamed. That hasn’t changed. What have we come to that it is standard practice for Magisters and Ministers to block each other? What have we come to for Moderators to step into Cabinet, the Magisterium, the Praesidium, and the Government Plaza to stop people who are at each others’ throats? For Moderators in a political debate to turn around and use their power to punish their interlocutor? For people to callously disregard someone’s personal struggles and tell them that they don’t care what they’re going through, that NationStates must come first? For people to resign from the FA Council, the Cabinet, or the Magisterium, or for people to leave the server temporarily or permanently? I think all of us should be ashamed of this.

That’s part of why I’m running for Delegate. You’re right, I haven’t been participating in the Executive. I won’t lift another finger to work for people who won’t even apologize for the stress and pain they have repeatedly caused me, for people who have harassed, denigrated, and insulted me again and again and feel no remorse. For people who think they’re too ‘adult’ for conflict mediation. And so I won’t work for those people. I’ll work for myself.

There was once a time, not long ago, where this disagreement still existed, and we saw a little less of the sordid consequences, but some of it persisted. In that time, “We slam each other in the press and we don’t print retractions” was an idea that people explicitly acknowledged and fought to avoid. It is not so anymore. There was once a time, not long before that, when we solved our issues through a democratic process that we all respected and, even when we disagreed, we held our tongues knowing that we had a chance to change minds and we couldn’t, but democracy had done its work.

Going back to your question, this is not a 180 shift for me. I won’t be standing against the tide if I am in the Delegacy and I am shaping the tide towards logic and compassion as I have tried to do for so long and failed to accomplish in high executive roles. And yes, if I don’t win this election, I will not lift a finger to implement any of these changes as a Minister, because I do not and cannot feel comfortable working with people who think it’s childish to want kindness and respect. So I will not.

One of two things will happen. Either I will win and, facing this newfound position to shape the culture towards positivity and progress without resistance, I will put my heart and soul into the Executive as I did for four years until my resignation, with visible results, or, I will lose and, unless I receive apologies and see people in power who are willing to listen and to talk and to move forward, I will not. Every member of our government needs to ask themselves a simple question: Do they value winning arguments over keeping the most dedicated and hardworking people this region has ever known? My government would say no.

My views have not changed. Too many people in this region are not leading with empathy anymore, and it breaks my heart. I will not participate in an Executive government that won’t do that, and that hasn’t changed, either. What has changed is that now I have the time and energy in my life to run for Delegate and, as Delegate, I know I can do something. I do not deny the frustration, stress, and pain that I have experienced in this government. It is real – and I know I am not alone. All I want to do is fix that. I tried as a Minister, and it didn’t work. I tried by resigning and bringing those issues to light, and it didn’t work. Now I want to try by running for Delegate.

I’d like to highlight this point. It is true – you have made me feel very horrible at times, and I know I haven’t responded to that with patience and grace during my most vulnerable moments. It is not a unique experience, unfortunately, in The East Pacific, to have such a history. So I appreciate that, nevertheless, you are willing to engage with my campaign and give me the feedback I need to make it as strong as possible for our people.

have you come up with a decision regarding your SC policy?

I think it’s fair to push for discussions in FA Watch, but ultimately I don’t want to create the expectation that you can influence our vote directly by joining. I want it to be more of a case where we either vote in cabinet after discussing in FA Watch or I make a decision based on the discussion. So in other words, I don’t think I’m comfortable with a direct vote, because I don’t personally see how that would solve any of the issues we’ve been seeing. I’m also half of the mind to launch a survey or poll of some sort upon ascending the Delegacy to decide the WA policy given my own conflicting ideas and that of the people.

On the GA – Cretox’s plan hadn’t been communicated to the public and I wrongly assumed what the intent of the Commission was. However, I still do think that centering discussion over voting is how we can ensure that we are making good decisions for everyone and not suffering from any form of voter shenanigans – be they malicious or not. Ultimately, no matter what, I don’t want a single person to think that they can influence our vote with anything but the sheer logos, ethos, and pathos of their voice. The voice is what I care about and what I want to prioritize, not any check mark reaction in any channel.