(12-06-2018, 09:39 AM)North Prarie Wrote: I want the people in charge of this bill to know that I believe that the delegate provision is unnecessary and that it restricts newcomers, something we certainly don't want to do. And that it will not get my vote until this provision is removed.

Which part specifically do you mean?

(12-06-2018, 03:29 AM)Seraph Wrote: I like RDC, though Frost might find that too weird. Let's not go with DAB, though, eh?

Oops… I realized that after I posted it, but you beat me to it.
 

(12-06-2018, 09:39 AM)North Prarie Wrote: I want the people in charge of this bill to know that I believe that the delegate provision is unnecessary and that it restricts newcomers, something we certainly don't want to do. And that it will not get my vote until this provision is removed.

I'm assuming you mean:

Quote:The Delegate must be a legislator and either on the DC or be otherwise eligible for DC.

I considered this myself too, but I decided to support this proposal because of the "eligible for DC" provision. I don't think DC membership should be necessary for the Delegacy, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to require candidates for the Delegacy to have high influence and high endorsement counts — which are, as far as I can tell, the only requirements for DC membership (aside from obvious stuff, such as good faith or whatever, I'm assuming).

(12-06-2018, 10:06 AM)Roavin Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 09:39 AM)North Prarie Wrote: I want the people in charge of this bill to know that I believe that the delegate provision is unnecessary and that it restricts newcomers, something we certainly don't want to do. And that it will not get my vote until this provision is removed.

Which part specifically do you mean?

The 'the delegate must either be on the DC or be DC eligible." That part.

Hang on... the names...

COuncil of Defence - COD
COuncil of DEfence - CODE
Department Of Security and Intelligence - DOSI
Department of Intelligence and SeCurity - DISC
Department of Intelligence and seCurity - DIC


Is that better?

(12-06-2018, 11:50 AM)North Prarie Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 10:06 AM)Roavin Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 09:39 AM)North Prarie Wrote: I want the people in charge of this bill to know that I believe that the delegate provision is unnecessary and that it restricts newcomers, something we certainly don't want to do. And that it will not get my vote until this provision is removed.

Which part specifically do you mean?

The 'the delegate must either be on the DC or be DC eligible." That part.

Okay, well, then I'll just refer you to this.

(12-06-2018, 01:41 PM)Roavin Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 11:50 AM)North Prarie Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 10:06 AM)Roavin Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 09:39 AM)North Prarie Wrote: I want the people in charge of this bill to know that I believe that the delegate provision is unnecessary and that it restricts newcomers, something we certainly don't want to do. And that it will not get my vote until this provision is removed.

Which part specifically do you mean?

The 'the delegate must either be on the DC or be DC eligible." That part.

Okay, well, then I'll just refer you to this.

Y'know what, this doesn't seem that bad now, as long as say, nations like Beepee and I can run. Would that be possible?

(12-06-2018, 09:39 AM)North Prarie Wrote: I want the people in charge of this bill to know that I believe that the delegate provision is unnecessary and that it restricts newcomers, something we certainly don't want to do. And that it will not get my vote until this provision is removed.

But ... seriously, why would we want to allow a newcomer to be given the delegacy, with the power to start banjecting nations and appointing their own ROs left right and centre? The delegate should be a restricted position, one that anyone can earn the chance to be elected to, certainly, but it shouldn't be easy. Roavin's suggestions does not prevent anyone from running for the delegacy eventually, it just forces them to prove themselves in some pretty basic ways first. And, to be fair, I'm with Rebel on the suggestion that they should be further strictures related to their service record in the region.

(12-06-2018, 01:44 PM)North Prarie Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 01:41 PM)Roavin Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 11:50 AM)North Prarie Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 10:06 AM)Roavin Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 09:39 AM)North Prarie Wrote: I want the people in charge of this bill to know that I believe that the delegate provision is unnecessary and that it restricts newcomers, something we certainly don't want to do. And that it will not get my vote until this provision is removed.

Which part specifically do you mean?

The 'the delegate must either be on the DC or be DC eligible." That part.

Okay, well, then I'll just refer you to this.

Y'know what, this doesn't seem that bad now, as long as say, nations like Beepee and I can run. Would that be possible?

Beepee would absolutely be eligible. You'd ostensibly be eligible with higher endorsements, both given and received (and an implicit part of the criteria is to see if an invididual can attain and hold a high endorsement count, which is necessary as Delegate).

You should only need to satisfy certain mechanical requirements in order to run for the Delegacy. Being a member of the DC is an unnecessary and inefficient requirement which will see massive rejection by the gameside community.

(12-06-2018, 01:54 PM)USoVietnam Wrote: You should only need to satisfy certain mechanical requirements in order to run for the Delegacy. Being a member of the DC is an unnecessary and inefficient requirement which will see massive rejection by the gameside community.

Well the current suggestion includes merely being eligible for the DC not necessarily being an actual member.