Users browsing this thread:

**Griffindor** · 05-05-2017, 07:33 AM

The APC has voted to submit this proposal to the Assembly. The goal of the revisions put forth are:

Give the CRS a formal leader
Make the CRS more secure
Remove the legislator application option.

The APC has worked with Sam on this, and he gave his suggestions. What you see here is by no means set in stone, and we actively encourage feedback on not just our edits, but on Article 9 as a whole. There seems to be some sort of consensus for reform.

Article IX of The South Pacific Charter Wrote:IX. THE COUNCIL ON REGIONAL SECURITY

Establishing a central authority for protecting the Coalition’s security

1. The Council of Regional Security will be composed of experienced and trustworthy members of the Coalition, and will be responsible for monitoring and responding to regional security issues.

Membership

2. The chair of the Council of Regional Security is the Prime Minister. The chair is in charge of leading investigations and public appearance. The chair will not be able to vote, unless there is a tie or they are already a member of the Council of Regional Security.

2. 3. To be considered for membership in the Council on Regional Security, a person must meet the following qualification: World Assembly membership in The South Pacific; a Soft Power Disbursement Score of at least 50000, or an Influence Ranking of at least Vassal; 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, ranking, and endorsement numbers may be updated by the Council, with majority approval by the Assembly, to reflect changes to the disbursement of influence in the region, or updates to the game. Any Legislator may be nominated to the Council of Regional Security by a majority of the cabinet, delegate, or by a majority of the members on the Council of Regional Security.

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 , nominees will be confirmed with a 2/3rds majority.

5. Continued membership in the Council on Regional Security is predicated upon meeting eligibility 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 majority of the Council 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.

7. Participation, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d’etat or invasion of the Coalition or any of its allies will disqualify an applicant or sitting member from membership in the Council on Regional Security immediately and permanently. Participation in normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military will not be considered a violation of this clause.

Powers

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 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, until such a time that a legitimate government is restored. All 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.

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

12. The Council on Regional Security shall designate an individual as Intelligence Coordinator, who must be notified of and approve all intelligence and counter-intelligence operations. The Intelligence Coordinator will be responsible for disseminating any and all intelligence to the Council on Regional Security and other bodies as needed.

This is the latest project of the APC and it passed a party vote 9-0-1.

-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

(This post was last modified: 05-05-2017, 07:53 AM by Griffindor.)

**Rebeltopia** · 05-05-2017, 08:23 AM

The whole reason for the strict qualifications for the CRS is REGIONAL security... it's meant to protect the region. The forums are only a "home base" for the CRS. Removing the in-game requirements is counterproductive to the area that the CRS was instituted to protect.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

***Roavin*** · 05-05-2017, 09:58 AM

Dear lord, kill it with fire. This bill is horrendously bad.

First, the PM is an elected political position and has not been vetted for security.
Second, if you don't think we need those influence requirements, you don't understand gameplay mechanics and shouldn't be deciding this.
Third, the other stuff boils down to making it such that a bunch of different places can basically say "hey, dontcha think X could be CRS?" and if that person has been nice on Discord that week, they get in.

The CRS is a regional security institution. Serious business. This bill will politicize, destabilize, and cosmopolitanize our security infrastructure, and in any remotely conceivable case decrease our region's security.

Against with the full power of everything I have.

[Image: 87720.jpg]

(This post was last modified: 05-05-2017, 09:59 AM by Roavin.)

***Tsunamy*** · 05-05-2017, 10:12 AM

First, I appreciate Griffin and the APC brining up this important issue. Something certainly needs to happen with the body.

That said, one of the long running disputes has been over whether we need to have people with endorsement counts and influence or people with game play knowledge. I feel like we've gone back on fourth on this issue — at one point having a primarily non-sedentary council and now having everyone with locked nations. Neither has worked especially well.

I think we need some sort of hybrid where we have committed nations in-game and larger security detail making judgements might be warranted.

I'm not sure all these reforms are the way to go, but I do like the idea of nomination and high Assembly approval. I've never been a fan of self appointments and/or applications directly to the CRS.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 05-05-2017, 10:24 AM

Removing the applications to the CRS and replacing it with a higher Assembly vote margin is pretty much the only part I like.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 05-05-2017, 10:58 AM

On a procedural note, according to Article 3, Section 1 of the Law Standards Act, amendments must quote only the sections being amended, and according to Section 4 of the same article, the Chair may not put legislation to vote that doesn't properly follow this format. Please be sure to correct the formatting if you decide to move forward with this legislation.

In regard to the actual content of the legislation, I pretty much agree with most of the criticism that has been offered. I do agree with Belschaft that I like the removal of the CRS' power to approve applicants, because I don't think letting the CRS determine its own membership is appropriate, and I support a higher margin in the Assembly (though I will only support 3/5, not 2/3, because we don't have that high a margin for anything). I do also agree that there needs to be a chairperson for the CRS, but I don't think it should be the Prime Minister.

(This post was last modified: 05-05-2017, 10:59 AM by Cormac.)

**Griffindor** · 05-05-2017, 01:22 PM

(05-05-2017, 10:58 AM)Cormac Wrote: On a procedural note, according to Article 3, Section 1 of the Law Standards Act, amendments must quote only the sections being amended, and according to Section 4 of the same article, the Chair may not put legislation to vote that doesn't properly follow this format. Please be sure to correct the formatting if you decide to move forward with this legislation.

In regard to the actual content of the legislation, I pretty much agree with most of the criticism that has been offered. I do agree with Belschaft that I like the removal of the CRS' power to approve applicants, because I don't think letting the CRS determine its own membership is appropriate, and I support a higher margin in the Assembly (though I will only support 3/5, not 2/3, because we don't have that high a margin for anything). I do also agree that there needs to be a chairperson for the CRS, but I don't think it should be the Prime Minister.

Yes, I am aware of the "only what is being changed" clause, I am simply showing what we changed, and from there I'm opening up further reform to the rest of the bill should we want to. I will cut what we don't Reform out when it's time to motion.

As for your second paragraph, I can agree to 3/5ths (I will add it in when I'm not mobile). Who would you like to see Chair the CRS then? Traditionally it's been the Vice-Delegate, so I thought it would make sense for the PM.

-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

**USoVietnam** · 05-05-2017, 11:16 PM

CRS's main function is to exercise security in the game , it is very relevant to the game mechanic and military gameplay so the removal of in-game requirements is extremely bad. For the CRS to function properly, it will need high endorsement counts and high influence to banject bad nations and prevent coups. Would you like to make someone as member of CRS with only 4000 influence and no endorsement? This is from the perspective of someone who participates a lot in military gameplay.

Aside from the requirements above, I think we will need the CRS members to have some knowledge in military gameplay. Many stuffs like reinforcing endorsements, banjectioning and delegate transitioning (I assume the CRS also participates in this) will need to be done in the correct way, influence is precious even if you have a lot.

Chief Supervising Armchair

(This post was last modified: 05-05-2017, 11:27 PM by USoVietnam.)

Sam111 · 05-06-2017, 05:18 AM

(05-05-2017, 09:58 AM)Roavin Wrote: Dear lord, kill it with fire. This bill is horrendously bad.

First, the PM is an elected political position and has not been vetted for security.

The vice delegate also did this and we had no problems with it, what's the difference?

Quote:Second, if you don't think we need those influence requirements, you don't understand gameplay mechanics and shouldn't be deciding this.

You sit there complaining about the lack of gameplay knowledge of the current members, so we make it so that it's possible to actually fix that problem, yet you continue to complain. What do you want then? We've got high influence and endo members, we will continue to have those members, all this does is enable us to fix the problem you feel exists.

Quote:Third, the other stuff boils down to making it such that a bunch of different places can basically say "hey, dontcha think X could be CRS?" and if that person has been nice on Discord that week, they get in.

Different places that have been elected and appointed to make decisions like this. What would you prefer, leaving it up to one small group of people who can literally just ensure that only their friends can be on it, if they so desire, or would you rather any random person being able to nominate themselves? If someone really shouldn't be on the CRS, a third of the voters is not hard to get together, and you can always recall those who propose them.

Quote:The CRS is a regional security institution. Serious business. This bill will politicize, destabilize, and cosmopolitanize our security infrastructure, and in any remotely conceivable case decrease our region's security.

Against with the full power of everything I have.

All I see is you making a bunch of sensationalist claims with no basis in fact.

(05-05-2017, 11:16 PM)vietnam Wrote: CRS's main function is to exercise security in the game

No, it's not.

"1. The Council of Regional Security will be composed of experienced and trustworthy members of the Coalition, and will be responsible for monitoring and responding to regional security issues."

Regional security issues are not solely confined to the gameside. If there is somewhere specifying that they are, I'll happily be proved wrong.

Quote:it is very relevant to the game mechanic and military gameplay so the removal of in-game requirements is extremely bad. For the CRS to function properly, it will need high endorsement counts and high influence to banject bad nations and prevent coups. Would you like to make someone as member of CRS with only 4000 influence and no endorsement? This is from the perspective of someone who participates a lot in military gameplay.

Depending on that person, yes I would. There is more to regional security than just having high endos and influence. I want members with the knowledge and experience necessary to supplement those who have high levels of influence and endos. If you have half a dozen members with the necessary influence, I fail to see how it would harm the council to have a couple of active gameplayers, who are knowledgeable and well connected.

Quote:Aside from the requirements above, I think we will need the CRS members to have some knowledge in military gameplay. Many stuffs like reinforcing endorsements, banjectioning and delegate transitioning (I assume the CRS also participates in this) will need to be done in the correct way, influence is precious even if you have a lot.

How is this supposed to happen then? This proposal would allow us to have members knowledgeable in military gameplay. Good luck finding people to stop being WA-mobile for long enough to even build up the necessary influence.

All I'm seeing is a small, select group of assembly members (not everyone who has commented on here or has taken part in other debates both on the forum and Discord is included) complaining as much about the CRS as they can, and when something is proposed to address some of their problems, they just complain further. There are members of this assembly who should be ashamed of themselves for their continued unnecessary toxicity and disgusting behaviour. It sure would be nice to see people actually try and change something, instead of sitting there taking potshots at the CRS.

If you don't like what we've got now, and you don't like this proposal, please make your own proposal, make the changes you want to see. Stop complaining, stop making excuses, do it.

For the record, I was the one who didn't vote for this proposal, but I do think it's better than what we have now, and I'm sick and tired of facing the ridiculous attacks the CRS and I have been facing recently.

Hello

(This post was last modified: 05-06-2017, 05:22 AM by Sam111.)

**USoVietnam** · 05-06-2017, 05:32 AM

(05-06-2017, 05:18 AM)Sam111 Wrote:
(05-05-2017, 09:58 AM)Roavin Wrote: Dear lord, kill it with fire. This bill is horrendously bad.

First, the PM is an elected political position and has not been vetted for security.

The vice delegate also did this and we had no problems with it, what's the difference?

Quote:Second, if you don't think we need those influence requirements, you don't understand gameplay mechanics and shouldn't be deciding this.

You sit there complaining about the lack of gameplay knowledge of the current members, so we make it so that it's possible to actually fix that problem, yet you continue to complain. What do you want then? We've got high influence and endo members, we will continue to have those members, all this does is enable us to fix the problem you feel exists.

Quote:Third, the other stuff boils down to making it such that a bunch of different places can basically say "hey, dontcha think X could be CRS?" and if that person has been nice on Discord that week, they get in.

Different places that have been elected and appointed to make decisions like this. What would you prefer, leaving it up to one small group of people who can literally just ensure that only their friends can be on it, if they so desire, or would you rather any random person being able to nominate themselves? If someone really shouldn't be on the CRS, a third of the voters is not hard to get together, and you can always recall those who propose them.

Quote:The CRS is a regional security institution. Serious business. This bill will politicize, destabilize, and cosmopolitanize our security infrastructure, and in any remotely conceivable case decrease our region's security.

Against with the full power of everything I have.

All I see is you making a bunch of sensationalist claims with no basis in fact.

(05-05-2017, 11:16 PM)vietnam Wrote: CRS's main function is to exercise security in the game

No, it's not.

"1. The Council of Regional Security will be composed of experienced and trustworthy members of the Coalition, and will be responsible for monitoring and responding to regional security issues."

Regional security issues are not solely confined to the gameside. If there is somewhere specifying that they are, I'll happily be proved wrong.

Quote:it is very relevant to the game mechanic and military gameplay so the removal of in-game requirements is extremely bad. For the CRS to function properly, it will need high endorsement counts and high influence to banject bad nations and prevent coups. Would you like to make someone as member of CRS with only 4000 influence and no endorsement? This is from the perspective of someone who participates a lot in military gameplay.

Depending on that person, yes I would. There is more to regional security than just having high endos and influence. I want members with the knowledge and experience necessary to supplement those who have high levels of influence and endos. If you have half a dozen members with the necessary influence, I fail to see how it would harm the council to have a couple of active gameplayers, who are knowledgeable and well connected.

Quote:Aside from the requirements above, I think we will need the CRS members to have some knowledge in military gameplay. Many stuffs like reinforcing endorsements, banjectioning and delegate transitioning (I assume the CRS also participates in this) will need to be done in the correct way, influence is precious even if you have a lot.

How is this supposed to happen then? This proposal would allow us to have members knowledgeable in military gameplay. Good luck finding people to stop being WA-mobile for long enough to even build up the necessary influence.

All I'm seeing is a small, select group of assembly members (not everyone who has commented on here or has taken part in other debates both on the forum and Discord is included) complaining as much about the CRS as they can, and when something is proposed to address some of their problems, they just complain further. There are members of this assembly who should be ashamed of themselves for their continued unnecessary toxicity and disgusting behaviour. It sure would be nice to see people actually try and change something, instead of sitting there taking potshots at the CRS.

If you don't like what we've got now, and you don't like this proposal, please make your own proposal, make the changes you want to see. Stop complaining, stop making excuses, do it.

For the record, I was the one who didn't vote for this proposal, but I do think it's better than what we have now, and I'm sick and tired of facing the ridiculous attacks the CRS and I have been facing recently.

No one is complaining about the CRS, we are complaining about the laws that are applied to it. Btw, criticism is toxic? Ok

Chief Supervising Armchair