Users browsing this thread:

Railana · 04-29-2016, 03:20 PM

How do the authors see World Assembly affairs fitting into this new structure?

***Tsunamy*** · 04-30-2016, 09:05 AM

(04-29-2016, 11:58 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: 1. The way I imagined this working is how it works in most RL legislatures. There's a vote called, and the person who gets a majority of the vote becomes the Chair. It's an Assembly-driven process, rather than an election with a solid time-frame and start/end dates. The terms for the Chair wouldn't necessarily line up with any other office, which is ok because it's its own thing now.

I've been mulling this over and ... I think someone needs to be in charge of it. It doesn't have to be an election per se, but someone needs to call the vote and oversee it.

We don't have the same behind-the-scenes mechanisms are RL legislatures, so I doubt someone will spontaneously hold the vote. Can we just say that the PM is responsible for calling for the vote?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***sandaoguo*** · 04-30-2016, 11:42 AM

Yeah, that works for me!

@Railana: Do you think we need to codify WA affairs? Currently it's under the purview of whichever Cabinet members wants it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Griffindor** · 04-30-2016, 12:48 PM

I suggest that the creators of the proposed Charters work together and fuse them together to create one very strong Charter. From there we will open up one more discussion over the final bugs, then a vote.

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016

**Belschaft** · 04-30-2016, 03:25 PM

I've given this a proper read through now, and I'm very impressed. There's a few alterations I'd like to put forward, but this is a comprehensive draft that reflects the content of the earlier stages of the Great Council.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 05-01-2016, 10:16 AM

Two more things on the "CSR."

First, the requirement that someone must have six months of legislator status would preclude TSSS, Curly and Arb — thereby knocking out possibilities down to five (me, DM, Kris, Far and you).

Is there a way we can adjust that? Especially for prominent local councilors (TSSS/Curly) or government officials (Arb).

I'm also not fond of the coup line. I get why you have it in there, but then it comes to a situation where what exactly is a coup? And when is it declared? And who gets to declare it?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***sandaoguo*** · 05-01-2016, 10:25 AM

Immediately, sure, but they could join and maintain the status if they want a shot at being on the CSR.

I don't think we should adjust anything, honestly. What's written is the lower bound of where we *should* be. It's our responsibility to work hard to bring the region up to code, so to speak. Lowering the requirements just makes everything less secure. I don't really think it was a good idea, in hindsight, to let low-endo low-influence people into the CSS just because they were popular on the game side (which we did with Aram, iirc). Those people are useless in the position, because they can easily be banjected, when the whole point is to have people who can't be. In the past, we were lax because there was an understanding members would get their numbers up. But that didn't really manifest, in my experience.

A coup is a coup is a coup. If you come to power outside the laws of the region, or you are in power and usurp the laws, it's a coup. The term actually isn't ambiguous, despite Bel's attempt to make it so in the direct aftermath of Hileville's coup.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***Tsunamy*** · 05-01-2016, 10:49 AM

(05-01-2016, 10:25 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Immediately, sure, but they could join and maintain the status if they want a shot at being on the CSR.

I don't think we should adjust anything, honestly. What's written is the lower bound of where we *should* be. It's our responsibility to work hard to bring the region up to code, so to speak. Lowering the requirements just makes everything less secure. I don't really think it was a good idea, in hindsight, to let low-endo low-influence people into the CSS just because they were popular on the game side (which we did with Aram, iirc). Those people are useless in the position, because they can easily be banjected, when the whole point is to have people who can't be. In the past, we were lax because there was an understanding members would get their numbers up. But that didn't really manifest, in my experience.

A coup is a coup is a coup. If you come to power outside the laws of the region, or you are in power and usurp the laws, it's a coup. The term actually isn't ambiguous, despite Bel's attempt to make it so in the direct aftermath of Hileville's coup.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please explain how the legislator requirement make this "more secure"?

And, I'm not sure a coup is a coup is a coup, especially when it comes to allies. Winners get to decide what's a coup because history is decided by the winners. For example, if Hileville et al. has succeeded this would be called a appropriate rebellion against an unfair power — not a coup.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 05-01-2016, 01:54 PM

The Council on Regional Security is one of the areas I would like to see alteration as well; the application requirement, as currently proposed, are such that no one who isn't already a member would be able to meet them. Obviously we're going to want to increase the endorsement cap significantly, if not remove it entirely, but I'd like to see lower application requirements at this point in time as the existing requirements mean that it will be a very long time before anyone else will meet them.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 05-01-2016, 02:15 PM

*puts on his CSS hat*

Speaking from a purely security-related perspective, having some kind of endorsement cap is important, if anything because it offers people an objective measure of when they risk having problems with whatever security institution we have after this Great Council.

It might seem obvious to us that nobody should be (for the sake of argument) within 10 endorsements of the Delegate, but that might not be at all obvious to a newcomer or someone mostly uninvolved with regional politics, and it would make no sense to tell someone to drop their endorsement count if there is no regulation to which we can point, or no specific limit between someone with lots of endorsements and someone who is "too close".

I'm all for a discussion on just how high the cap should be, and as I said in the Regional Message Board, the Committee for State Security has actually been discussing a significant increase beyond even our post-Milograd cap, so a much higher cap is definitely possible, perhaps even desirable. But a cap, viewed as a limit, either high or low, to the amount of endorsements nations may have, is something we need to keep.

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