Automatically granting legislator status in the interim is a huge security risk that I cannot begin to understate the potential issues with.

From prior experience with other administrative and security teams, sometimes I’ve had investigations go on for weeks or more if there’s something about an individual that needs resolving. If an individual’s story needs lining up and an application takes longer to process, that is precisely a time when you do NOT want to be granting them access to potentially classified information.

Still - I’m definitely in favor of accountability, but in general I think the current mechanism works. I think the motion I initiated on the Minister of Culture last term, even though it was ultimately soundly defeated, shows that even if it is unsuccessful, legislator-initiated recalls do a good job sparking debate, activity, and reform where they need to. Recalls are a great tool when used appropriately.

I don’t think there is much of a problem if a legislator application takes longer than usual to be fully processed, after all there can be particular circumstances that required taking a closer look at the applicant or coordinating between government institutions. What I do think can be an issue is when an application is not even recognised as received and under review, which can give the applicant the impression that they aren’t even being considered. That particular step is the one that should be taken care of as soon as possible.

That’s all fine, but at the end of the day the law itself doesn’t need to be changed. LegComm needs to acknowledge applications within 48 hours. If they don’t, the Assembly can open discussion on what to do, including possible recalls. There really isn’t anything we can do to 100% guarantee LegComm acts in 48 hours, people have free will and all that.

I believe the current system is working as intended.  
I applied to be a Legislator within a day or so of joining the TSP, as it was listed as a way to get involved in TSP.  (It's listed on one of the intro telegrams or greetings.)
Not having any idea what was involved in TSP operation, I assumed applying for Legislator here was similar to becoming a citizen in another realm.  
At any rate, after two or three weeks of not hearing back, I stopped worrying about it and now spend my time on Discord or the RMB.  I stay active in TSP-- after all I just won some SWAN awards, such as Cygnet and a few others for endorsing 1,000+ people-- and I roam around the game forums such as the Security Council.  Even ran for LC to see what that was about.  And I write back to some of the people who telegram me, as you do.  And I've been in voice chat a few times.  But as for these xyz forums.... I don't pay them any mind. 
I think they actually made me a legislator eventually, but it was well past the window of opportunity of my initial surge of enthusiasm, and as there's nothing here to engage my interest now that I'm indifferent, I may vote once or twice a month to keep up my membership against the day when I find actual time for caring about whatever goes on in the XYZ forums, but I'll probably just let it lapse within a month or two.  I understand some of the people here are worried about 'bad actors' and 'security concerns,' but I just see lots of roleplay fluff on these forums; nothing that Max Barry or his in-game moderators would know or care about, so I don't see what people are so afraid of.  
At any rate, there are new members of the welcoming committee, and there are I'm sure new legislators coming in every day, so I believe it's all working as intended.  
Good day.

(04-14-2021, 05:15 AM)Aglet Green Wrote: I understand some of the people here are worried about 'bad actors' and 'security concerns,' but I just see lots of roleplay fluff on these forums; nothing that Max Barry or his in-game moderators would know or care about, so I don't see what people are so afraid of.  

The roleplay stuff is public, so being a legislator or not doesn't affect your access to those forums. What I think people would be more concerned about than access to public forums are bad actors 1) getting access to private legislator areas, where potentially sensitive discussions may occur (#legislators-lounge and the private Assembly subforum), though generally the discussions are not that sensitive, 2) being able to run in elections/get appointed to certain positions, which could allow them to get access to much more sensitive information (including interregional diplomatic discussions, intelligence on other regions, etc.) and have a big influence on how the region is run, and 3) importing votes (getting lots of people to sign up to be a legislator to vote a certain way and influence elections in bad faith, often to elect a bad actor). We also have a number of proscribed players whom we would not want to give legislatorship to (due to their history of actions detrimental to our government) (of course they shouldn't be in our region in the first place, but it's often hard to tell who an on-site puppet belongs to using on-site info alone if they try to obscure it), and we wouldn't want anyone to be a legislator under more than one identity at a time. Nor would we want any OOC blacklisted players. So, it's pretty important that the Legislator Committee thoroughly vet any potential applicants. There are probably more things to consider that I'm not aware of even!

Offsite stuff isn't government by onsite rules or moderators at all (which can be a bit of an issue when it comes to fascist regions but that's besides the point). Since onsite moderation has no effect on offsite forums, I'm not really sure what you mean by your statement regarding in-game moderators?

No, you're absolutely right Purple. What we do as the Legislator Committee is absolutely not to protect against "bad actors" or banned players on the NationStates site - the on-site admins and moderators are responsible for finding and removing players who have broken the NationStates rules. However, if we come across anything like that, we do of course report it to them.

The Legislator Committee exists to protect the interests of the Coalition of the South Pacific and its legitimate government. We do that by thoroughly vetting all applicants for Legislatorship, with the goal that no one with ill will toward us gains the right to access private areas of our forums or Discord, vote on our laws, or elect our ministers. It's perfectly legal (and at times seems encouraged) from site moderation to play the game this way - players are certainly allowed by site rules to assume false identities and attempt to gain access to regions from which they are banned or otherwise not welcome, whether for in-character or out-of-character conduct. However, TSP and its own government has an interest in protecting itself. TSP has had multiple infiltration and coup attempts over the years by players who applied in bad faith. Our goal is to ensure all Legislators apply and remain active in good faith, and are not influenced to gain or use their access by our enemies.

Indeed - on a meta-level, spying and infiltration and all those things are perfectly valid ways to play the game, but within the context of the game universe roleplay, we here in TSP of course want to protect ourselves from other bad actors (within the roleplay) that might want to overthrow our current government.

"roleplay" meaning that of our Assembly, Cabinet, etc. It is important to distinguish those parts from the RP forum where people RP as their nations. I think there was some confusion in that within Aglet's initial post - the Assembly and Cabinet are distinct from the roleplaying forum. Just to clarify some terms, but yeah you're 100% correct. Spying and infiltration are perfectly allowed within the context of the game, but we as a region have an interest in stopping it in order to protect ourselves and the Coalition.

Cabinet has the option to appoint an emergency member of Legcomm if "there is no member of the Legislator Committee available due to vacancy or leave, and there are outstanding duties to be performed". Maybe it would help to expand that to just... if the Legislator Committee are available but super slow and could do with some help

(04-14-2021, 01:16 PM)Nakari Wrote: if the Legislator Committee are available but super slow and could do with some help

Wouldn't that be an outstanding duty to be performed?