Users browsing this thread:

**USoVietnam** · 07-31-2019, 10:31 AM

(07-31-2019, 09:37 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Not to weigh in one way or another, but I don’t think the forum does any kind of “vetting” to the degree that it would prevent all kinds of security issues.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

It is quite significant actually as in order to go through the forum round you need to be popular with the GP-literate people.

Chief Supervising Armchair

***Kris Kringle*** · 07-31-2019, 10:43 AM

It definitely is, but it’s not the sort of comprehensive vetting that would prevent a “dangerous” candidate from passing to the gameside round. Basically, it’s not wise to put all our hopes on the forum keeping us safe from bad candidates.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

***Tsunamy*** · 08-01-2019, 08:46 AM

(07-31-2019, 10:43 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: It definitely is, but it’s not the sort of comprehensive vetting that would prevent a “dangerous” candidate from passing to the gameside round. Basically, it’s not wise to put all our hopes on the forum keeping us safe from bad candidates.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I mean, that's ultimately how we've always run it. Forum-only elections hardly promoted more vetting.

Otherwise: Where does the "influence" line cut? I think this is very different if we're talking about *only* the "very low" influence nations (which would be 5 in the past election) and anything higher? (Honestly, it's interesting that we have some "very low" and then everyone else is "Medium" or higher ...)

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Farengeto** · 08-01-2019, 11:07 AM

(08-01-2019, 08:46 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(07-31-2019, 10:43 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: It definitely is, but it’s not the sort of comprehensive vetting that would prevent a “dangerous” candidate from passing to the gameside round. Basically, it’s not wise to put all our hopes on the forum keeping us safe from bad candidates.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I mean, that's ultimately how we've always run it. Forum-only elections hardly promoted more vetting.

Otherwise: Where does the "influence" line cut? I think this is very different if we're talking about *only* the "very low" influence nations (which would be 5 in the past election) and anything higher? (Honestly, it's interesting that we have some "very low" and then everyone else is "Medium" or higher ...)

I don't know where it falls on the low/medium/high/etc scale, but the cut-off with this requirement is having a minimum of exactly 2000 influence. At last census there were a bit over 800 nations in TSP (including non-WAs) which met that requirement.

Volaworand · 08-03-2019, 10:19 AM

I supposed "vetted" was the wrong choice of words, but realistically what is the chance of a nefarious character finishing in the top 2 in forumside voting?

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

**Belschaft** · 08-03-2019, 10:42 AM

(08-03-2019, 10:19 AM)Volaworand Wrote: I supposed "vetted" was the wrong choice of words, but realistically what is the chance of a nefarious character finishing in the top 2 in forumside voting?

It's quite possible, but only as part of a wider pattern of institutional failure. Assuming that the individual is known to hold "nefarious" intent then we'd need a significant number of legislators to be willing to overlook that, and that would most likely occur if the Legislator Committee had been compromised to let these people acquire membership. That in turn would require the Cabinet to have been compromised, as they nominate LegCom members.

The most likely way it could occur is with someone who didn't have a prior record of misdeeds, either because they are operating under a false identity or because they don't have a prior record and we become their "first offense".

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Amerion** · 08-22-2019, 12:28 PM

May I assume this proposal has been tabled for the future?

Qaweritoyu · 08-23-2019, 05:26 AM

You can if you like, Amerion, but I'm just going to pop back to what Somyrion said about encouraging people to join the WA and to tart. Yeah, I agree it'll encourage people to join the WA but some people might not have a lot of time to tart, if any. I can't speak for others but when University starts up again for me, I will be there for anything up to 12 hours a day as well as a commuter journey there and back. After a full day, possibly even week, of working that hard, the last thing I will be thinking about is logging on to NS and endotarting. I barely ever have time to sleep at home without including everyone else. Is it fair excluding anyone because they don't have time for a lot of endotarting. That doesn't mean none at all, there is the weekend but their endotarting during the week will be low to non-existent. I understand that that will count as endotarting but if someone is so tired at the weekend and all they want to do is log on to relax and they don't want to endotart just to make sure they will be able to vote in the next election, is that fair?

Spoiler

(This post was last modified: 08-23-2019, 05:29 AM by Qaweritoyu.)