I don't think your opinion, or Bel's opinion, is commanding here. Either way, the correct answer is to recall the CRS if you don't trust us. If you don't think recalls are appropriate, then that really speaks for itself. What's a terrible idea is forcing the CRS to work with people they don't trust or even like, because you think you need to balance out, or because you're not willing to go for recalls but want your preferred somebody in there anyways.

And if you do go for recalls and they fail, then frankly too bad. Suck it up. You personally not trusting the CRS doesn't mean we've done anything wrong. And based on the conversations in the legislator channel on Discord, you can't really vocalize why you distrust us and what you would do differently. So perhaps, then, it's up to you to do some soul-searching on that.

I don't believe I can prove in court that any of you have been derelict in your duty, abused your authority, or violated the law, and that is what is going to be required to sustain a recall. I'm not going to pursue something I know will ultimately fail because the High Court will overturn it. That would just be needless weeks of drama to end up right back at the status quo when the drama concludes. We also have no replacements for those of you I think have acted inappropriately, and recalling you without viable replacements would be irresponsible, to say the least.

What's interesting to me is that you believe distrust of the CRS is unique to Belschaft or me. It isn't. Your security powers wouldn't have just been reduced, and we wouldn't be discussing reform, if it were. Even some CRS members don't have confidence in the CRS at the moment. Unfortunately, opinion is so divided in the Assembly and in the judicial working group that I don't believe we will arrive at any substantive reform anytime soon, so I'm giving up and acknowledging that we're stuck with the status quo for the foreseeable future. The status quo is bad for the CRS and bad for the community in general, but that's where we're at and no one is budging. I guess it is what it is.

(This post was last modified: 05-13-2017, 07:53 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

The powers weren't "reduced"-- all you did was say we had to provide a report to the Assembly, and press charges if we're saying somebody committed a crime. The SPA still gives plenty of power to the CRS.

I'm not worried about trust in the CRS. You're an upstart who came here after getting kicked out of Osiris, following countless coups of your own. You're a notorious flip-flopper in this game, to the point where few people trust *you*. Glass houses, etc.

The CRS is composed of some of the oldest members of this community. We all have extensive stints in government and have proven time and again our dedication and care for the community. Belschaft has proven time and again that he cares about himself, and that when he feels he has the latitude to do so, he'll tend to conspire to break community norms in order to get rid of his political enemies. That you don't trust the CRS's opinion on that is more an indictment of your own judgement than ours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I'm putting forward this trimmed down draft in hopes of achieving some reform. Essentially, this draft eliminates the incorporation of WA mobile players into the CRS, as well as eliminating the nomination process in favor of reverting to an application process, so that those who were uncomfortable with the logistics of those provisions can just focus on whether they can live with other provisions regarding creation of a chairperson and admission to the CRS.

[...]

2. The Council on Regional Security will be chaired by a member of the Council. The Council will select its chairperson by simple majority vote and may select a new chairperson at any time. The chairperson of the Council will be responsible for leading and moderating its discussions, overseeing the progress of investigations, and communicating with the public or other institutions on behalf of the Council.

3. Any legislator who has maintained six consecutive months of legislator status, or anyone who has served at least two terms on the Local Council, and who meets endorsement and influence requirements for membership may apply to the Assembly for a seat on the Council on Regional Security. The Council will recommend that the Assembly vote for or against each nomination, accompanied by a report detailing the Council's reasons for the recommendation. After the required debate period and after the Council has made its recommendation, the Assembly will vote on the nomination to the Council and the nominee must be confirmed by three-fifths supermajority vote.

2. 4. To be considered for membership in granted a seat on the Council on Regional Security, a person must meet the following qualifications: World Assembly membership in The South Pacific; a Soft Power Disbursement Score Rating of at least 50000, or an Influence Ranking a Regional Influence ranking of at least Vassal, in The South Pacific; and at least 200 endorsements or half the endorsements of the Delegate; and six consecutive months of legislator status, or at least two terms in the Local Council. The specific influence score Soft Power Disbursement Rating, Regional Influence ranking, and endorsement numbers may be updated by the Council, with simple majority approval by the Assembly, to reflect changes to the disbursement of influence in the region, or updates to the game.

3. Eligible members may submit an application to the Council, clearly showing that they meet the basic requirements, and offering reasons for why they should considered for membership. The Council will review applicants and choose whether or not an applications will be submitted to the Assembly for approval.

4. The Assembly will vote on applications forwarded by the Council, using a simple majority threshold.

5. Continued membership in the Council on Regional Security is predicated upon meeting eligibility continuing to meet endorsement and influence requirements. Should any member of the Council fail to meet those requirements, they will lose membership and all the powers and privileges that come with it, if they do not meet the requirements within a week of notification.

6. If a simple majority vote of the Council on Regional Security deems a member to be a threat to regional security, they will be suspended from the Council pending an official investigation and report to the Assembly. Following the investigation, the Assembly must vote on whether to remove or reinstate the member.

[...]

8. The Council on Regional Security will be responsible for establishing an appropriate cap on endorsements, ensuring that such cap is not detrimental to the growth of the region. Enforcement of the endorsement cap should be done with leniency if the Council determines that a violator does not pose a significant risk to regional security.

9. During a coup d’etat, whether committed by outside forces, infiltrators, or duly elected officials, the Council on Regional Security may assume martial command of the Coalition declare a state of emergency, until such a time that a legitimate government is restored. The Assembly may not be suspended nor have its powers limited in any way by the Council. All other necessary measures may be taken to defeat a coup d’etat or hostile invasion.

10. The Delegate must grant members of the Council on Regional Security appropriate Regional Officer powers to fulfill their duties. When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available, those positions must be given to the most senior Council members according to highest endorsement count.

11. The Council on Regional Security, the Prime Minister Cabinet, and the Delegate will establish a line of succession for the Delegate seat.

(This post was last modified: 05-16-2017, 03:35 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

I like this, actually, although I'd be surprised if it didn't prove just a controversial as your other drafts. Still, I do like it.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

So the CRS can't deny an applicant because that's how it looks.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

So the CRS can't deny an applicant because that's how it looks.

Correct. Same as before, except applications straight to the Assembly, instead of nominations.

Reply

I like this!

-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

Reply

I'm actually going to withdraw my proposal in favor of Glen's proposal, here. It's not my ideal, but it's a fair enough compromise.

Reply

I'm putting forward this trimmed down draft in hopes of achieving some reform. Essentially, this draft eliminates the incorporation of WA mobile players into the CRS, as well as eliminating the nomination process in favor of reverting to an application process, so that those who were uncomfortable with the logistics of those provisions can just focus on whether they can live with other provisions regarding creation of a chairperson and admission to the CRS.

10. The Delegate must grant members of the Council on Regional Security appropriate Regional Officer powers to fulfill their duties. When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available, those positions must be given to the most senior Council members according to highest endorsement count.

This is impractical; it could change at the drop of the hat and the delegate is going to be forced to change.

Moreover, if endorsement count does nothing. Seniority is a better way to determine who has the judgement to hold the power.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

This is impractical; it could change at the drop of the hat and the delegate is going to be forced to change.

Moreover, if endorsement count does nothing. Seniority is a better way to determine who has the judgement to hold the power.

This was requested by another CRS member via Discord. Regardless, I've withdrawn my proposal in favor of Glen's.

Reply