Special Comment #3 - In Defense of Drecq

Waaaaaaay back in April last year, I wrote two op-eds I called Special Comments, in homage to Keith Olbermann. Well, I feel like writing another Special Comment, so that is what I'm going to do.

Special Comments I do write during my tenure as MoFA will not deal with FA issues.

When I withdrew from the most recent Senatorial Elections (not the by-election), I included a point that I was no longer going to see higher office in Europeia, and that I would no take higher positions, etc. That my political career in Europeia, such as it was, was over. I changed my profile title to "Jettisoning His Political Career' and that was that. I didn't leave Euro, and continued to make my opinions known, still worked in the areas I had lesser jobs in, and otherwise was active.

I meant what I said, that I was done with a political career in Europeia. When I said it, I meant it. I fully intended to not run for Senate again (something I still hold to) and I fully intended to not pursue higher appointed office.

But then, the fact that I accepted Swak's offer of MoFA proves that I didn't hold to that latter part.

In my defense, as I said, I meant what I had said about withdrawing - when I said it. But when Swak came to me over Skype and asked me if I wanted to be his MoFA...its very hard to say no to your dream job. I mean, literally. Minister of Foreign Affairs is the job in Europeia I have wanted more than any other ever since about a week after I first joined. When someone offers you something you've wanted for over a year...its very, very hard to say no. And so...well, my resolve on my latter vow cracked, and I said yes. I wanted this job, and I thought and do think that I can do very well in it.

But I also knew that I would be a...contraversial choice, to put it mildly. Swak (at least in conversation) appeared to be more optimistic about my reception by the Senate than I did, but I'll admit, I was preparing myself for the possibility of being rejected by the Senate, should Swak get elected and indeed nominate me. I already knew what I would do If I was rejected - write an Op-Ed and then get back to what I was already doing - sailor in the navy, writing the Foreign News Wire, and hanging around, making my political views known.

I was also, however, thinking about what I would do if I was indeed approved. What I would do to enact Swak's FA platform. Things like considering wich regions I would include in the five focus and five emerging focus regions he outlined. Which regions I thought were better as 'consul' regions, as opposed to Ambassador regions. You know, just getting the wheels turning.

Then came the day of nomination...and the expected conrtaversy. I was humbled, and remain humbled, by the support I got from some of the giants of this region - and of course, by Swak actually nominating me in the first place. I wish that I had better ways to thank you for your words of support apart from 'thank you', but I don't. so Thank you. I guess the best way I can repay you is to be an incredibly good MoFA, and thus not force you to eat your words. I certainly intend to be the best MoFA I can be.

But I did get opposition. Not at all surprising. I'll admit, I was a little surprised by CSP's oppotision. I expected some serious questions raised from CSP - he seems to do that with mst nominees, something I support - but the Aye votes of CSP and Apollo were the ones I felt I was most likely t get, at the time of my initial nomination. Drecq and Alexander, I really had no idea about. I certainly hoped that the prevailing trend in Europeia of approving the Presidents Nominees with little issue would dominate here, but I wasn't counting on it. Jahka, I'll admit, I was expecting a solid no. For reasons that seemed logical to me - our ideological opposition is very real. Now, I am incredibly grateful to Jahka for his Aye vote. Never before have I been so happy I've been wrong in NationStates.

CSP's nay vote, while I don't like it (no one likes Rejection), is a vote I understand, even if I didn't expect it. He stated his concerns quite clearly (I respect that a lot. Always be upfront with me about your issues with me. Not only is it more honest, but its more likely to get results. I am completely, or almost completely, blind to the vast majority of social cues, both IRL and Online, unless they're from people I know extremely well, like my family or close friends) and while I felt that I had mollified them enough with my response (clearly I didn't), CSP's nay vote comes with its own logic and reasoning. Good logic, and good reasoning. Obviously, I don't agree with his opinion about my capacity to be a MoFA in all aspects. such as the public face one, or I would not have accepteted the nomination in the first place. But I understand and Respect CSP's choice.

And this is what brings us around to Drecq's abstention. His comment that he didn't feel he knew enough to cast an Aye or a Nay. I actuallu support this. I think he did the right thing. Yes, it is the job of a Senator to be educated and to educate themselves, if need be, but speaking from experiencing, understanding the intricacies of FA is not easy. It took me a long time to get them down, and I'm still learing more all the time. Drecq could have held off on voting until he had taken the time to get educated, but Drecq, who strikes me as a diligent, do the whole job kind of guy, would likely have been quite through in his attempt to educated himself about the matter. Which would have taken days, at least, likely. Resonably, he didn't want to tie things up for that long. I think, overall, Drecq did the right thing. Now, if he does it again, then he's clearly not fulfilling his duties to educate himself, which is another matter entirely. But I do think Drecq made the right decision for the circumstances.

Good Night, and Good Luck.
 
Had he kept his mouth shut and simply abstained, we wouldn't be gutting him for said abstain. :p The clarification on why he abstained speaks much more to me than the reason behind the vote (or lack thereof) itself.
 
Had he kept his mouth shut and simply abstained, we wouldn't be gutting him for said abstain. :p The clarification on why he abstained speaks much more to me than the reason behind the vote (or lack thereof) itself.
Or maybe we would have, since, in the past (and in my experience) if no excuse is offered for the way one votes, then that in and of itself becomes an issue. ;)
 
Reading through this it seems like there are a lot of people that don't like the way I voted and the reason for it. I understand why. You think that I should have made a point of integrating myself in FA so that I did not have to stand there and admit that on this subject I know next to nothing. And I agree, I should have made more of an effort to learn FA. But honestly, there were a lot of things I needed to learn and because I had no contact with FA I decided it was relatively far down the list. In the 2 months since I became active in Europeia I have learned much about Culture, Interior, CI, the ERN, the legislative, Europeias Laws in general, and so much more. At the time of the confirmation (yesterday) I had not yet come to FA, mostly because my mind had somehow made itself able to block or repress that aspect. And yes, chances are I could have taken more time out of my day over the last 2 months to learn more and come to FA sooner. But honestly, however much fun this is and however immersive this is, when I have to decide between learning for an exam or learning for NS, I choose the exam, when I have to decide wether to go out with friends or sit at my pc and learn about FA, I go out with friends, when I have to decide between most anything IRL and NS chances are I will go with IRL. Because at the end of the day this is a game. Now, this doesn't mean that I wont eventually come to FA. Sooner or later I will learn about it (no matter if I am elected again or not). Until then, I abstain on MoFA confirmation votes (not that there will be another one before I have gained the necessary knowledge) and vote on Treaties from a legislative view not a diplomatic one. If you don't like that you can always petition the rest of the Senate to remove me.

Edit: It does seem like I am "being gutted" because of my reason for abstaining and not the abstaining itself. However, no matter which Senate vote, if you ask me why I voted a specific way I will tell you. I am not going to lie and I am not going to duck away from a direct question.
 
In the future, I'll ask each Senate candidate explicitly - "do you feel comfortable making an educated decision regarding legislation and confirmation in the areas expected of you as a Senator."

Usually I ask a question similar to that to which, normally, the response is 'I vote Aye before a Nay' but in a long winded way.

Senate confirmations are a tricky thing because if you vote Nay your an ass, however you might genuinely believe that someone is a weak candidate for the position. However if you vote Aye and the candidate is crap... there's no repercussions. So it isn't a 'fair' system in the sense that it can be a lose-lose situation.
 
It does seem like I am "being gutted" because of my reason for abstaining and not the abstaining itself. However, no matter which Senate vote, if you ask me why I voted a specific way I will tell you. I am not going to lie and I am not going to duck away from a direct question.

And that kind of honest is exactly what we need.
 
Elias said:
One doesn't have to know a lick about the military side of gameplay to know CSP is a good choice for Grand Admiral and - oh, I don't know - AA is a bad one.
AA is a three-time Grand Admiral. :p
 
Had he kept his mouth shut and simply abstained, we wouldn't be gutting him for said abstain. :p The clarification on why he abstained speaks much more to me than the reason behind the vote (or lack thereof) itself.

The criticism began before he explained himself, and intensified once he gave an explanation that many people found unsatisfactory.

Of course every Senator will not be an expert on every topic. It is important, therefore, for a Senator to have good judgment about whom he/she trusts for advice on matters where he/she is not an expert. On this particular issue, there was no shortage of expert advice available -- the pros and cons of Cerian's nomination were debated at some length by several citizens with extensive foreign policy credentials. It's not too much to ask him to take a stand. If he was not swayed by either side's arguments, he should have voted "aye" out of respect for presidential prerogatives.

I don't want to pile on Drecq -- he's a hard worker, an emerging leader, and by all accounts a good guy. I think he stepped in it here, I said so, and I've explained why. I'm ready to move on.
 
Petty? You weren't following the debate then, Rachel.
 
Petty? You weren't following the debate then, Rachel.
I did and thought the objections were pretty silly, the President sets the foreign agenda and not the Minister of Foreign Affairs. So, it didn't seem like a legitimate concern that we'd have a "rogue" Foreign Minister. So I felt it was more of your dislike for Cerian.
 
The Concern of CSP and others (not PhDre) was more the fact that as the public face of Europeian foreign affairs, not every personal opinion I hold is in line with the views of the Swakistek Administration, and the concern was that, since they argue (wrongly, I think) that everything I say is going to reflect back on Europeia, the Administration and Euro FA - everything, in every cirumstance - that I was going, essentially, to screw up.

 
I have no idea what that is or how to respond to it. Sorry.  :lol:
Click? Click.

The Concern of CSP and others (not PhDre) was more the fact that as the public face of Europeian foreign affairs, not every personal opinion I hold is in line with the views of the Swakistek Administration, and the concern was that, since they argue (wrongly, I think) that everything I say is going to reflect back on Europeia, the Administration and Euro FA - everything, in every cirumstance - that I was going, essentially, to screw up.
I still wrestle with the idea that anytime a Supreme Chancellor - HEM, myself - speak abroad about anything, it reflects back on Europeia. But those concerns are credible to some degree, annoyingly.
 
I didn't see much evidence of things Elias said coming back on Europeia - there were a number of times when he said things on the NS forums that ddn't nessesarily speak the exact same as the Vinage Administration's line.
 
Back
Top