(03-26-2021, 07:58 PM)Altmoras Wrote: I don't think there's really a problem with the current system. There would be an issue if the timing of our elections was 6 months after the Delegate's inauguration or something, but since the elections are on a fixed date I don't see a problem. The outgoing delegate retains the powers of their office until the incoming delegate exceeds them in endorsements, so if the incoming takes a while to tart then they're only hurting themselves.

 

Quote:Legislators wishing to run for Delegate must hold a number of endorsements equal to at least 80% of the existing applicable endorsement cap at the commencement of the election period.

If you're looking for a practical way to make the transition shorter I would change this requirement to 90%.

That reduces the field of potential candidates down to about 15. I'd be down with this if we changed to a system where people who have declared their candidacy can endotart for a couple weeks, but with the current system? No thanks.

(03-26-2021, 08:16 PM)North Prarie Wrote:

(03-26-2021, 07:58 PM)Altmoras Wrote: I don't think there's really a problem with the current system. There would be an issue if the timing of our elections was 6 months after the Delegate's inauguration or something, but since the elections are on a fixed date I don't see a problem. The outgoing delegate retains the powers of their office until the incoming delegate exceeds them in endorsements, so if the incoming takes a while to tart then they're only hurting themselves.

 

Quote:Legislators wishing to run for Delegate must hold a number of endorsements equal to at least 80% of the existing applicable endorsement cap at the commencement of the election period.

If you're looking for a practical way to make the transition shorter I would change this requirement to 90%.

That reduces the field of potential candidates down to about 15. I'd be down with this if we changed to a system where people who have declared their candidacy can endotart for a couple weeks, but with the current system? No thanks.

Is there a requirement I missed forbidding potential candidates from tarting before the election? Endorsements aren't fixed, if someone is interested in running for delegate they can gather more to meet the requirement. Just like how in the current system someone with 75% of the cap would have to gather enough to reach 80% in order to be eligible. Changing the specific percentage required would create a smaller gap between the winning candidate and the Delegate, thus hopefully shortening the transition, which is the issue at hand here. I suppose it could also filter out candidates who are incapable of achieving 90% of the cap, but given that endotarting is one of the core skills required of a WA Delegate I would call that a benefit.

(03-26-2021, 08:26 PM)Altmoras Wrote:

(03-26-2021, 08:16 PM)North Prarie Wrote:

(03-26-2021, 07:58 PM)Altmoras Wrote: I don't think there's really a problem with the current system. There would be an issue if the timing of our elections was 6 months after the Delegate's inauguration or something, but since the elections are on a fixed date I don't see a problem. The outgoing delegate retains the powers of their office until the incoming delegate exceeds them in endorsements, so if the incoming takes a while to tart then they're only hurting themselves.

 

Quote:Legislators wishing to run for Delegate must hold a number of endorsements equal to at least 80% of the existing applicable endorsement cap at the commencement of the election period.

If you're looking for a practical way to make the transition shorter I would change this requirement to 90%.

That reduces the field of potential candidates down to about 15. I'd be down with this if we changed to a system where people who have declared their candidacy can endotart for a couple weeks, but with the current system? No thanks.

Is there a requirement I missed forbidding potential candidates from tarting before the election? Endorsements aren't fixed, if someone is interested in running for delegate they can gather more to meet the requirement. 

No, there isn't, but I would despise a system where the only people who can be Delegate were the ones eyeing the position. I would much rather have a Delegate who runs after realizing their skills and the trust the community has in them, rather than one who eyes a position that there really is no business eyeing, as it's one that's weak on policy.

(03-26-2021, 09:48 PM)North Prarie Wrote:

(03-26-2021, 08:26 PM)Altmoras Wrote:

(03-26-2021, 08:16 PM)North Prarie Wrote:

(03-26-2021, 07:58 PM)Altmoras Wrote: I don't think there's really a problem with the current system. There would be an issue if the timing of our elections was 6 months after the Delegate's inauguration or something, but since the elections are on a fixed date I don't see a problem. The outgoing delegate retains the powers of their office until the incoming delegate exceeds them in endorsements, so if the incoming takes a while to tart then they're only hurting themselves.

 

Quote:Legislators wishing to run for Delegate must hold a number of endorsements equal to at least 80% of the existing applicable endorsement cap at the commencement of the election period.

If you're looking for a practical way to make the transition shorter I would change this requirement to 90%.

That reduces the field of potential candidates down to about 15. I'd be down with this if we changed to a system where people who have declared their candidacy can endotart for a couple weeks, but with the current system? No thanks.

Is there a requirement I missed forbidding potential candidates from tarting before the election? Endorsements aren't fixed, if someone is interested in running for delegate they can gather more to meet the requirement. 

No, there isn't, but I would despise a system where the only people who can be Delegate were the ones eyeing the position. I would much rather have a Delegate who runs after realizing their skills and the trust the community has in them, rather than one who eyes a position that there really is no business eyeing, as it's one that's weak on policy.

And changing the 80% requirement to 90% is the line for that? One would think that if that is your philosophy then you be proposing to abolish the requirement entirely.

(03-25-2021, 08:18 PM)Somyrion Wrote: I think we're mixing up terminology a bit here. I find myself repeatedly emphasizing a fact that (understandably) does not seem to have sunk in for most South Pacificans: the Delegate election already occurs a few months before the start of the new Delegate's official term.

I'm going to put my foot down here and disagree with this, because it's not how our system worked since the start of this incarnation of the Charter. This is a change that happened on June 2020, so it's only been in place for 2 elections. That's not a set-in-stone precedent. There's a real disconnect with electing a Delegate and that person not being Delegate until months later. That's why people have pointed it out and taken issue, despite the Elections Act amendment from June 2020. I voted for the change, but even still I think we tried and I've changed my mind on the wisdom of it.

I take issue with treating this as normal, because it's banking on us never getting the transition process right. It's relying on transitions always taking a long time. It's only because of an inefficient process that "the Delegate election already occurs a few months before the start of the new Delegate's official term." If we're better at this process this July, then Beepee's term will be shorter than Amerion's, so on and so on. That's not a sound way to do things.

(03-28-2021, 02:03 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:

(03-25-2021, 08:18 PM)Somyrion Wrote: I think we're mixing up terminology a bit here. I find myself repeatedly emphasizing a fact that (understandably) does not seem to have sunk in for most South Pacificans: the Delegate election already occurs a few months before the start of the new Delegate's official term.

I'm going to put my foot down here and disagree with this, because it's not how our system worked since the start of this incarnation of the Charter. This is a change that happened on June 2020, so it's only been in place for 2 elections. That's not a set-in-stone precedent. There's a real disconnect with electing a Delegate and that person not being Delegate until months later. That's why people have pointed it out and taken issue, despite the Elections Act amendment from June 2020. I voted for the change, but even still I think we tried and I've changed my mind on the wisdom of it.

I take issue with treating this as normal, because it's banking on us never getting the transition process right. It's relying on transitions always taking a long time. It's only because of an inefficient process that "the Delegate election already occurs a few months before the start of the new Delegate's official term." If we're better at this process this July, then Beepee's term will be shorter than Amerion's, so on and so on. That's not a sound way to do things.

So, few things.

1) I don't think the change from June 2020 was all that different than what was written into the Charter before that. (For reference: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8261.html)

2) I read Somy's post as more of a statement of what is rather than a defense of how it should be. And, practically speaking, how was the previous change any different than anything that happened before? (Frankly, I forgot we even made this change, but unless there's something I'm missing it just reworded our previous practice in more verbose terms.)

3) I think it's totally appropriate for the length of delegate terms to vary by a few days. But, we we're discussing the length of scheduled terms varying by months, that's a totally different story. 

I feel like I made the argument then and I'll make the argument now, that I don't think we want to get into a setup where we make sure every delegate has served for 182 days. But, yes, it's untenable to assume that every transition is going to take two months and would almost automatically led to a regional crisis.

I understand Somy's point (or at least think I do) about the amendment to the Elections Act and how that means terms start/stop. I don't see why that disproves the idea we could move the election up a month with a clause that the Delegate-elect cannot actually start their term until one month later with an eye towards speeding up the start of terms. I also don't understand how that is meaningfully different from the solution to the one Somy explained here except for making an effort to correct the "six months = too long" issue.

At the same time, I agree with Somy that it doesn't make sense to change the way terms formally start/stop (per the Elections Act amendment, as I understand it) since the Delegate has few-to-no powers/responsibilities that aren't linked to being the in-game Delegate.

(03-28-2021, 05:40 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: 1) I don't think the change from June 2020 was all that different than what was written into the Charter before that. (For reference: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8261.html)

It was a significant change. Prior to June 2020, the winner of the election had all the rights and responsibilities of being Delegate, and the person occupying the Delegate seat was basically a "pass-thru" for anything involving the regional controls. Post amendment, the Delegate-elect has no authority and the outgoing Delegate remains the legal officeholder. That's the basis of the idea that the transition delays don't matter, because the "term" for the Delegate-elect will eventually equal out because of delays in the next transition. Under the old system, the terms were fixed and the outgoing Delegate had no actual authority because they didn't hold the legal office. So regardless of how long the transition took, the legal Delegate would always have a July-January (or vice-versa) term.

(03-28-2021, 05:40 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: 2) I read Somy's post as more of a statement of what is rather than a defense of how it should be. And, practically speaking, how was the previous change any different than anything that happened before? (Frankly, I forgot we even made this change, but unless there's something I'm missing it just reworded our previous practice in more verbose terms.)

Continuing from above... The change is that now the Delegate-elect isn't the legal Delegate until they actually take the physical seat. They have zero authority, versus before when they had all the legal authorities of the office. The Delegate-elect doesn't become Delegate until months later. They're doing nothing but gathering endos, because that's all they're legally allowed to do.

I think that creates an obvious disconnect in people's mind. "We got excited about electing this person... what's going on? Why aren't they Delegate? What happened to all the campaign promises and ideas?"

Reading the debate thread from when the June 2020 amendment was passed... I'm not really sure how we even arrived at our current system. Because the start of the debate was more about changing endo caps and requiring certain numbers of endorsements. Then it just became "the only thing the Delegate-elect does is endotart." So the changes we made didn't actually do anything to address the problems with transitions. I think we should completely reverse those changes, to be honest.

(04-01-2021, 07:13 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:

(03-28-2021, 05:40 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: 1) I don't think the change from June 2020 was all that different than what was written into the Charter before that. (For reference: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-8261.html)

It was a significant change. Prior to June 2020, the winner of the election had all the rights and responsibilities of being Delegate, and the person occupying the Delegate seat was basically a "pass-thru" for anything involving the regional controls. Post amendment, the Delegate-elect has no authority and the outgoing Delegate remains the legal officeholder. That's the basis of the idea that the transition delays don't matter, because the "term" for the Delegate-elect will eventually equal out because of delays in the next transition. Under the old system, the terms were fixed and the outgoing Delegate had no actual authority because they didn't hold the legal office. So regardless of how long the transition took, the legal Delegate would always have a July-January (or vice-versa) term.

(03-28-2021, 05:40 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: 2) I read Somy's post as more of a statement of what is rather than a defense of how it should be. And, practically speaking, how was the previous change any different than anything that happened before? (Frankly, I forgot we even made this change, but unless there's something I'm missing it just reworded our previous practice in more verbose terms.)

Continuing from above... The change is that now the Delegate-elect isn't the legal Delegate until they actually take the physical seat. They have zero authority, versus before when they had all the legal authorities of the office. The Delegate-elect doesn't become Delegate until months later. They're doing nothing but gathering endos, because that's all they're legally allowed to do.

I think that creates an obvious disconnect in people's mind. "We got excited about electing this person... what's going on? Why aren't they Delegate? What happened to all the campaign promises and ideas?"

Reading the debate thread from when the June 2020 amendment was passed... I'm not really sure how we even arrived at our current system. Because the start of the debate was more about changing endo caps and requiring certain numbers of endorsements. Then it just became "the only thing the Delegate-elect does is endotart." So the changes we made didn't actually do anything to address the problems with transitions. I think we should completely reverse those changes, to be honest.

Fair fair. I suppose I assumed the outgoing delegate was still essentially giving everything over to the new delegate and the change was more of a legalistic matter regarding in-game designation.

Otherwise, yes, totally agree that we should go back to the old system. 

And, I wonder if this change actually inadvertently made the transition longer and if Beepee had more authority/public facing activity he would've gathered endorsements more quickly.

(04-01-2021, 07:13 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Post amendment, the Delegate-elect has no authority and the outgoing Delegate remains the legal officeholder. That's the basis of the idea that the transition delays don't matter, because the "term" for the Delegate-elect will eventually equal out because of delays in the next transition. Under the old system, the terms were fixed and the outgoing Delegate had no actual authority because they didn't hold the legal office.

I may not understand TSP law in great enough detail yet, but what powers does the Delegate have that are not explicitly tied to holding the in-game WA Delegate seat that it would therefore be useful to designate an elected (but not yet in-game ascended) Delegate as the lawful Delegate in order for them to exercise?

My understanding of the position is that the WA Delegate is an informal head of state with some leadership charisma (for lack of a better term) of the on-site community and who otherwise pushes buttons in accordance with other organs of government. I guess per 2(1) of the World Assembly Act they are losing out on the prerogative to give their approval freely, but that power would functionally be restricted anyways since the in-game Delegate is the only one with an "Approve" button to press. 

Moreover, in my current understanding, the discussion of when the term starts/stops seems to be much ado about nothing. But I'm very open to the fact my understanding is flawed or lacking