(11-14-2018, 07:16 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: People are saying this thing is bad because of the whole oligarchy thing, the main issue with the current proposal is that it is not detailed enough so that we can give a prediction about the performance and if it will work as intended or not.

Yeah, I didn't want to be too detailed yet. I have ideas, but I think it's worth discussing everything generally. We're not in a rush here.

(11-14-2018, 07:16 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: Make the DC as strict as the CRS and say hello to rejection by gameside no matter how much propaganda work you put in, or loosen it, which means a populist can overcome the system using the same method as IoU and sneak in which defeats the purpose (as I assume, is to stop voter manipulators) in the first place.

Well, populist demagogues generally, but yeah. I agree. I think we can find and use a good middle ground.

(11-14-2018, 07:16 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: On the CSI, letting them appoint themselves is a bad idea for various reasons: Concentrated powers, current CSI members may not be too bright so they get in incompetent people,... (Give me an institution in TSP's 16-years history that appointed themselves and actually worked), maybe restrict it to just recommendation and let the Cabinet do the job like with the LegComm?

IIRC Glen had argued for CRS appointing itself back during the GC, maybe he can elaborate. I can see benefits of either approach and this is surely something to discuss.

The CRS self regulation as always, essentially, been a self-nom followed by a decision by those on the committee. I think that would continue to make sense for the DC (whether the DC or CSI approve). I don't think that would make sense for the CSI, since there's no objective criteria that could be met and we're ultimately considering judgement.

Is there a way to spilt the difference so to speak? What if we keep the DC as envisioned, but the CSI is appointed by the Cabinet (more in the line of LegComm)? The CSI can make the judgement calls for DC membership.

That has the dual benefit of ensuring proper people are appointed, but also the CSI being accountable to the Cabinet (and recalls) and the Cabinet, ultimately, responsive to the voters.

(11-13-2018, 06:24 PM)Seraph Wrote:

(11-13-2018, 02:34 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Im not saying that the CSI/DC will, but they absolutely could refrain from adding a high influence, high endo nation who could otherwise be a great delegate from the DC. Im not against a vetting process for those who want to run for delegate, though. Added security is always better, but not at the cost of fair elections.

If you want a figurehead delegate, we should just dissolve the democracy and go with a monarchy...

The delegate already is a figurehead position and had been since, what, the 2016 GC? The absolute power of the delegate's in-game position is completely tempered by our Charter and all the real power is the hands of the cabinet anyway.

Essentially the delegate has two main responsibilities: regional security and as a focal point for gameside interaction, much of which involves passing people on to the relevant authorities, usually being the cabinet, like a glorified receptionist. (Not that I didn't enjoy all this, but that's the reality of the current role). Exercise of other powers, like assigning ROs is all mandated by election results, etc and so is effectively ceremonial.

Elected figureheads like this are completely a thing IRL, though and I see no reason why being a figurehead role means it has to become a monarchical or permanent position. 

My point was more that it could become a clique rather than allowing qualified but maybe not cliqued Legislator from running for delegate. Like I said, Im not against a more stringent vetting process, but having to apply or be appointed to a higher tier above Legislator seems drastic to me.

Id suggest a hard-number stance... Maybe SPDR: 50k, endos: minimum 2/3 of the cap, at least 3 full terms (or the monthly equivalent) in an elected office in TSP. This could be verified by the CSI, and appealable to the court. Its a set regulation, rather than some arbitrary vote by those already in power.

I'm going to note for the record that I am vehemently against this proposal.

I've seen the discussions on it going years back. This essentially just creates the oligarchy that NSGP likes to accuse us of having.

(11-14-2018, 01:19 PM)Farengeto Wrote: I'm going to note for the record that I am vehemently against this proposal.

I've seen the discussions on it going years back. This essentially just creates the oligarchy that NSGP likes to accuse us of having.

And the CRS isn't that thing?

If anything, besides the LegComm, this centralizes this - the people that have the physical in-region power don't have the say, and vice-versa. It's the equivalent split between Delegate and Prime Minister.

(11-14-2018, 02:54 PM)Roavin Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 01:19 PM)Farengeto Wrote: I'm going to note for the record that I am vehemently against this proposal.

I've seen the discussions on it going years back. This essentially just creates the oligarchy that NSGP likes to accuse us of having.

And the CRS isn't that thing?

If anything, besides the LegComm, this centralizes this - the people that have the physical in-region power don't have the say, and vice-versa. It's the equivalent split between Delegate and Prime Minister. 

Gee, it just takes centralizes power over elections, the legislature, security and others in a unaccountable group of self-selecting individuals. That definitely disproves my previous statement.

(11-14-2018, 10:16 PM)Farengeto Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 02:54 PM)Roavin Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 01:19 PM)Farengeto Wrote: I'm going to note for the record that I am vehemently against this proposal.

I've seen the discussions on it going years back. This essentially just creates the oligarchy that NSGP likes to accuse us of having.

And the CRS isn't that thing?

If anything, besides the LegComm, this centralizes this - the people that have the physical in-region power don't have the say, and vice-versa. It's the equivalent split between Delegate and Prime Minister. 

Gee, it just takes centralizes power over elections, the legislature, security and others in a unaccountable group of self-selecting individuals. That definitely disproves my previous statement.

Bleh, I miswrote - I meant decentralizes this.

Also, again, how does this have anything to do with elections? And how is it per force unaccountable?

Here are some ideas to fix issues that are attempted to be fixed with Roavin's proposal without making the whole thing into an oligarchy:

- The CSI can nominate new members for itself, the Cabinet appoints members with approval vote (Make the pass threshold very high or something to reduce politicization) from the Assembly. The Assembly can recall any CSI member like usual. CSI will handle legislator applications or appoint a body that does so. We can use the same procedures to get new CSI members as the current CRS though.
- Satisfying a certain influence, endorsement, legislator/local council duration requirement like the current CRS will make you eligible for running for the Delegacy, no DC membership is needed. This eliminates populists like IoU as you need to stay in the region for a long time for this. Voting will occur on both the forum and gameside as original, I don't know why you should remove this, the delegate needs to be aware of forumside matters. A populist such as IoU won't make it through these extensive requirements and lobbying for gameside votes isn't an easy task. We should worry about a Tim winning the delegacy, you can fix this just by removing them for security reasons. They can appeal the decision via the High Court. If your trustworthiness is low to the point you can't join the DC (for the Delegacy as in the original proposal) then why you should be a legislator anyway.
- The DC stays as what the original proposal said, just that you don't need to be in the DC in order to run for the delegacy. The only power the DC has is that they can hold more endorsements than the endorsement cap, decide the cap (Although I prefer the CSI does this), and run SWAN although I prefer the MoRA does this.

So, DC is for succession in case the delegate disappears, acting as a point for a liberation in case of a coup, and exercising Border Control power. CSI will actually do the security and intelligence work as original. Everything stays the same for the delegate election except you need CRS-level technical requirements in order to run.

Quote:Satisfying a certain influence, endorsement, legislator/local council duration requirement like the current CRS will make you eligible for running for the Delegacy, no DC membership is needed. This eliminates populists like IoU as you need to stay in the region for a long time for this.

I highly support just putting influence/endorsement/trust restrictions on the delegacy. It accomplishes the goal of restricting the delegacy to trusted individuals, without the impression of a shadow council of pre-picked candidates that the lowly legislators pick their favourite from.

I don't really support using IoU as an example of a populist who won't put time into the region. IoU's been WA and a legislator in TSP for six months now, which I would count as putting time and devoting in-game resources. Intentionally putting things in to eliminate IoU from the delegacy is being just as oligarchic as GP likes to say we are. So can we chill on that

The aim should be to make sure that the potential delegates have all put significant time and devotion into TSP. Anyone (yes, even populists!) should have a chance at the delegacy if they put the commitment into it.

Quote:I don't really support using IoU as an example of a populist who won't put time into the region. IoU's been WA and a legislator in TSP for six months now, which I would countas putting time and devoting in-game resources. Intentionally putting things in to eliminate IoU from the delegacy is being just as oligarchic as GP likes to say we are. So can we chill on that  

The post was written for an audience that hates IoU so you need examples that hit the right place in the mind of these people.