| APC: Reforming the CRS |
|
Why have the CRS provide an opinion at all if the Assembly decides in the end? I mean imagine the CRS recommending against an applicant and then the Assembly voting for that applicant and now there's more bad blood. Or even vice versa the CRS recommending and the Assembly voting against.
If we can't trust the CRS to do their job then maybe we don't a CRS in the first place. You can't have a body that is entrusted with the responsibility of the region's security be a puppet to the Assembly because the Assembly has acted on herd or mob mentality before. The whole point of the CRS is to distinguish long term stability from short term popularity contests or etc. I can see the cabinet approving the CRS nominee because the cabinet is elected and once again if the Assembly can't trust their elected officials then.... Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest (05-11-2017, 03:13 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Regarding your first response, what if we run the nomination through the Cabinet? So, the delegate can appoint, but then it has to be voted on by the Cabinet? There's no reason to give a delegate more power; frankly, the delegate is suppose to be less politically important than at really any other time in TSP history. Isn't the Delegate being less political a good reason to allow the Delegate to make nominations to the CRS? That said, I don't particularly care about that provision, it was part of the APC's first draft and I just kept it in the re-draft. If we don't want the Delegate making nominations, I'm happy to take it out. (05-11-2017, 03:13 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Second, I see your point regarding the Assembly process. I misunderstood, but, as the draft stands, I believe the CRS could reject an appointed nominee sending the said nominee back to the Assembly if the initial recommendations are ignored. I'm against giving the CRS any actual power over its membership. Providing the Assembly with a recommendation and report is fine, but there is no other institution in TSP that gets to decide who its members will be. There is no reason for the CRS to be the exception. (05-11-2017, 03:13 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Finally, you missed my point with regard to the second quoted reply. I'm not saying we'd nominate six people, but this draft encourages a switch nomination if the in-game side is reduced. Meaning, if we did nominate six people without stationary nations, and one of the people with a stationary nation dropped, we'd strongly encouraged to find another member, regardless of their ability. The point of requiring that half the CRS members meet the WA locked qualifications was to ensure we don't end up with too few WA locked members to protect game-side. That was the original purpose of the CRS. If you have an alternative suggestion, I'm all ears. (05-11-2017, 03:13 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Finally — and I'm going to be a bit blunt here — I'm taken aback that you summarily dismissed my concerns and instantly motioned this for a vote. I'd be disappointed if you thought you're role as Chair of the Assembly was to ram through potentially questionable legislation as quickly as possible. It would be easier to regard you as a natural ally in this fight if it didn't look very much like you're trying to shut down reform altogether, or wait for Roavin's "reforms" that would, based on everything I've heard, grant further unchecked power to a new security institution that shuts out the only dissenting voices on the current CRS in favor of an unchecked, far too powerful echo chamber. That said, I withdraw my motion to vote in order to allow further debate. (05-11-2017, 03:58 PM)Escade Wrote: Why have the CRS provide an opinion at all if the Assembly decides in the end? I mean imagine the CRS recommending against an applicant and then the Assembly voting for that applicant and now there's more bad blood. Or even vice versa the CRS recommending and the Assembly voting against. Why not just abolish all other institutions of government and put the CRS in charge? The CRS is clearly perfect, completely apolitical, and cannot make a mistake or abuse its power. Because it is the perfect institution, far better than an Assembly comprised of us plebs, it requires no oversight or checks on its power whatsoever. So bearing in mind that the CRS is infallible, shouldn't it just run the region? No Assembly, no Cabinet, no High Court. The CRS can select the Delegate as well. Why not? A perfect institution requiring no oversight should clearly run everything. What need is there for any other institution?
I think having some sort of WA locked\high influence membership is necessary because that is the regional security portion. That said, and with the recent military situation, having some mobile members might be useful.
I'm not sure how we really envision the CRS: 1. A body that literally protects the in-game delegacy\coalition 2. A body that gathers intelligence on potential threats 3. A body that makes recommendations about security that the cabinet\Assembly\court\whichever institution is the true seat of power can make a decision on 4. A body that makes decisions about security issues that are like legal actions It seems like we want 1,2 and 3. It also seems like 4. is the sticking point. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
I'm honestly not even sure what people want anymore in terms of CRS reform. It seems like everyone wants something different and no one wants to compromise about much of any of it. It also seems like most of what people want is vague and very ill-defined, which as the person legislating the current draft, is difficult and frustrating. If you don't like this legislation, what would you like to see? I'm not a mind reader and you're not giving me much to go on.
If anyone has concrete suggestions to improve the most recent draft, I'm willing to discuss them. But these broad, vague posts, and refusal to compromise on nearly any issue, aren't getting us any closer to producing a draft enough people will be happy with. We're not going to end up with CRS reform, now or later, if this continues to be how it's approached. And it seems clear from the incessant drama related to the CRS that reform of some sort is needed. Anyone is also free to introduce competing legislation, but no one ever introduces anything. We just talk about reforming the CRS, argue about it, complain about the CRS, and then no one does anything about it. Let's either do something about it or accept it the way it is and stop the stupid drama over it.
I like the idea of having all nominations go through the cabinet. The CRS or Delegate or Cabinet can nominate but the Cabinet decides who gets put before the Assembly.
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 (05-11-2017, 06:58 PM)Omega Wrote: I like the idea of having all nominations go through the cabinet. The CRS or Delegate or Cabinet can nominate but the Cabinet decides who gets put before the Assembly. That's arguably worse than the CRS deciding who gets put before the Assembly, because the Cabinet is a political institution comprised of only five people. I don't know what this recent emphasis on letting a tiny group of people decide things instead of letting the Assembly decide is about. What makes the Cabinet or the CRS any better than the rest of us? Are we too stupid to make decisions? If so, why not abolish the Assembly and shift to an elected legislature so we can be a Balderesque oligarchy? (I'm not actually advocating that, but surely you all see my point).
Oh, I meant having the Cabinet decide who gets sent to the Assembly. Sorry for not making that clear. The Cabinet, because they are elected every 4 months should be very trusted.
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
I think Cormac found that very clear, and was disagreeing all the same.
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
It's almost like people can disagree on an issue and not be wrong but rather need to find more middle ground.
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest (05-11-2017, 08:34 PM)Omega Wrote: Oh, I meant having the Cabinet decide who gets sent to the Assembly. Sorry for not making that clear. The Cabinet, because they are elected every 4 months should be very trusted. (05-11-2017, 10:18 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I think Cormac found that very clear, and was disagreeing all the same. Yes. This would still be a matter of the Cabinet deciding who gets put before the Assembly, in effect, deciding who gets appointed to the CRS. I don't think that is appropriate because the Cabinet is a political institution comprised of only five people. At that point, I would rather have the CRS itself, a less political institution comprised of six people and directly responsible for regional security, deciding who should be put before the Assembly if we're going to have a "gatekeeper" institution. An institution as political as the Cabinet is not appropriate. In any event, this free for all method of drafting CRS reform is not working out well at all and is not conducive to productive reform. I will likely be making an announcement in regard to CRS reform later today. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |