I think the title sums my request up pretty well.

Section 1.(2) of the Military Code, which details the duties and responsibilities of the General Corps, states that;

The General Corps shall be the supreme entity leading the military, hold responsibility for the planning and overseeing all missions of the military, decide all personnel matters including applications and promotions, and handle disciplinary actions as a tribunal.

While most of the work a General is supposed to do doesn't require any special technical access of any sort, this changes when we arrive at processing new applicants for the SPSF. From what I understand, the typical security checks for someone joining us is pretty much the same as the Legislator check, and requires access to the Admin Control Panel (ACP). It's a really essential process for every R/D organization out there, as utilizing spys is a commonly used tactic in the scene, especially when our military remains the most likely place a potential bad-faith actor wishing to harm TSP would infiltrate first.

However, the members of the General Corps do not get any access to the ACP. I don't know why this is a thing, but they don't and have to instead rely upon LegComm members to get these checks done.

Up until now, this wasn't really a prevalent issue as all three members of the General Corps were also active members of LegComm and could easily check over new applicants using those powers. However, this is not the case anymore. Those three LegComm-Generals? They've either retired or signalled to retire from their positions, leaving only a sole General who was confirmed just a couple hours ago as the only active member of the body behind. And they don't have any powers to carry out arguably their most pressing duty without having to rely on someone else, thus significantly backlogging SPSF applications and risking the loss of interest and engagement from prospective contributers to the region.

I personally don't believe that we would face any problem if Generals are given access to the ACP. They're confirmed into their position by the Assembly, just like LegComm members, signifying that an overwhelming majority of the region needs to have trust in a proposed candidate before they're sworn in as a General. They already need to have an extensive and decorated record of service in the SPSF, as well as showcase a proven investment in the health and growth of our regional military to be even considered as a candidate for the General Corps. I can't think of any regular instances where it may backfire on the region, except in extremely unusual circumstances that are unlikely to occur.

As always, open to hear others' opinion on it.

Reply

Presumably, should this be implemented, the Assembly would consider the OOC trustworthiness of General nominees before approving them. However, there is one thing I'm concerned about.

Article 1, Section 1 of the Military Code says:

The General Corps is a commission comprising up to three Commanders and the Minister of Defense. A Commander on the General Corps shall be called a General.

This means that we could have a case where a non-General Commander is elected as MoD. Or, we would have a non-Commander be elected, but they get promoted to Commander partway through their term. Either way, they are technically a General without having been approved for that specific role. Does this mean that OOC considerations should be made when electing MoD? Or, should these powers not be given to the MoD if they were not separately approved as a General?

Or, if they are not a Commandar, then they are part of the General Corps without being a General. Would they also get those powers?

I have been things

Reply

Considering General-appointments are approved by the Assembly, and that those appointed to the position tends to be long-standing members of both the region and the South Pacific Special Forces, I do not see why one might strongly disagree with Generals receiving administrative powers similar to LegComm. 

This will not only ensure the applications to the SPSF are processed quicker by the Ministry of Defense but it will also safeguard the SPSF from bad-actors (through Generals being able to do the background checks along with the Minister) as you have mentioned Moon. 

Perhaps either a) General appointments could require a sign-off from CRS, or b) Generals that will be given ACP access requires CRS approval? This may alleviate the some concerns of granting this access to the Generals.

(And as it was mentioned on Discord, 18+)

Reply

Considering General-appointments are approved by the Assembly, and that those appointed to the position tends to be long-standing members of both the region and the South Pacific Special Forces, I do not see why one might strongly disagree with Generals receiving administrative powers similar to LegComm.

Generals have never been either nominated or confirmed with the idea that they might have such level of sensitive access, so I do see why one might disagree with this proposal. It doesn't mean that it doesn't have merit, but I don't see it as such a "no-brainer" as some might think.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Considering General-appointments are approved by the Assembly, and that those appointed to the position tends to be long-standing members of both the region and the South Pacific Special Forces, I do not see why one might strongly disagree with Generals receiving administrative powers similar to LegComm.

Generals have never been either nominated or confirmed with the idea that they might have such level of sensitive access, so I do see why one might disagree with this proposal. It doesn't mean that it doesn't have merit, but I don't see it as such a "no-brainer" as some might think.

I do agree that the Generals have never been nominated nor confirmed with the idea of having such a high sensitive access. That is why I recommended coupling this with a) Generals require CRS sign-offs before appointment and confirmation, or b) Generals who will be granted ACP access are required to be approved by CRS. 

Effectively, make the checks for General appointments or Generals granted access to ACP similar to LegComm.

Reply

ACP access isn’t actually needed to view IP addresses or manage user group membership. Moderator groups can be given IP view permissions, we just haven’t done that by default. And user groups can have leaders that can admit applicants to the group.

Reply

From my perspective, I don't know what is the distinction between ACP access and the amended moderator access that Glen suggests in his last post. I'm entirely fine with Generals having the most narrowly tailored permissions necessary to do the required task, and that those permissions can be denied by forum administration to Generals who are underage or where basic trust does not exist.

The things that are important for Generals to access are IP addresses, if possible including a screen for seeing if an IP has ever been used by another TSP forum user, and at times Generals will need email access as a backup. If this can be achieved without ACP access, then that's fine.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
General of the South Pacific Special Forces
Ambassador to Balder
Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense

Reply

I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I feel like giving non-admins access to user emails is a step too far. This is a game, no matter how serious we might understandably take it, and no IC aspect of it is so sensitive that we need to be invading people's privacy like that.

The option Glen suggests would allow Generals access to the IP check functionality and to manage memberships over the Special Forces group. That much seems reasonable to me. ACP access would additionally allow Generals to view user emails, edit their profiles, and even change the email and password. I think that level of access is unwarranted.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 03-31-2022, 06:12 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

As it's done elsewhere, The General staff can just ask the forum admins for a security check. Setting a standard procedure to give non vetted ACP access to a forum never ends well. Being good at defending and low level forum access is two very different things.

Real-life Girls

(This post was last modified: 03-31-2022, 07:33 PM by QuietDad.)

Reply

The option Glen suggests would allow Generals access to the IP check functionality and to manage memberships over the Special Forces group.

That seems like a fair compromise and would work for me as well.

Reply