Users browsing this thread:

**Rebeltopia** · 12-06-2018, 04:24 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.

In my 7+ years in TSP, I've rarely seen someone come straight from gameside and run for delegate, and expect to have a fighting chance.

To be delegate, there needs to be a HUGE amount of respect and trust. Its very important that our delegate be a known, well trusted member of this region. As Roavin said 9 days ago...

Roavin Wrote:If you're an active endorsement swapper (which you'd expect a Delegate to be), at the current requirement and endorsement cap, it will take you approximately 2.5 months to reach the required influence from zero. ...

If some rando comes in, tarts for 3 months, and just so happens to meet the influence requirement as delegate elections start... Id hate for that person to have enough forum votes to get to gameside...

Not to hate on IoU, but what he did was show just how easy it'd be for some unknown person to make it to gameside... Hell! Frak came in under the name Haxtree, spent more than 6 months being a great Minister and Army member before being found out. I'm not saying the CRS would let that happen again, but its happened before, and its continuing to happen in out regions (See: NPO's latest shit). the longer we have to find out who is straight, and who is pretending to be someone they're not, the better chance that the person will not turn into another Milograd...

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

North Prarie · 12-06-2018, 04:38 PM

(12-06-2018, 01:48 PM)Roavin Wrote:
(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: 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).

Okay. I'm fine with that.
I'll be backing this proposal.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Imperial Frost Federation · 12-06-2018, 06:04 PM

(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?

I like the acronym as well, just not the security proposals being discussed.

I understand that these are still proposals and ideas being drafted, and not an actual resolution, but I am going stand firmly against these reforms. I don't believe there is a need to wipe the slate clean. Yes, there needs to be reforms, but those could be done by expanding the existing foundations. There is no need to create an undemocratic security apparatus with its hands on the gates to political positions and the Assembly. Leg Comm certainly has some holes that need to be filled with respect to appealing a failed legislator application, but there has only been some comments about making sure this new security apparatus is held accountable to the people of TSP. With none of them being adopted or considered in the recap.

Jebediah · 12-06-2018, 07:02 PM

(12-06-2018, 04:24 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote:
Quote:If you're an active endorsement swapper (which you'd expect a Delegate to be), at the current requirement and endorsement cap, it will take you approximately 2.5 months to reach the required influence from zero. ...
If some rando comes in, tarts for 3 months, and just so happens to meet the influence requirement as delegate elections start... Id hate for that person to have enough forum votes to get to gameside...

I completely agree. Endorsements have really nothing to do with who becomes the delegacy, the only time it matters is when the delegate is picked and everyone endorses them

[Image: st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg]

***Roavin*** · 12-06-2018, 07:25 PM

(12-06-2018, 06:04 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote:
(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?

I like the acronym as well, just not the security proposals being discussed.

I understand that these are still proposals and ideas being drafted, and not an actual resolution, but I am going stand firmly against these reforms. I don't believe there is a need to wipe the slate clean. Yes, there needs to be reforms, but those could be done by expanding the existing foundations. There is no need to create an undemocratic security apparatus with its hands on the gates to political positions and the Assembly. Leg Comm certainly has some holes that need to be filled with respect to appealing a failed legislator application, but there has only been some comments about making sure this new security apparatus is held accountable to the people of TSP. With none of them being adopted or considered in the recap.

Do you have specific ideas to suggest re: accountability? I don't see a reason not to add that to the recap when we have a more specific way to go about it.

**Belschaft** · 12-06-2018, 08:29 PM

I'm broadly speaking on board with splitting the CRS into a "DC" and "CSI" - though those names suck - but I'm not sold on the point or desirability of removing LegCom or the preliminary forum round of Delegate elections.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Roavin*** · 12-06-2018, 08:51 PM

Yeah, the consensus has already been that the forum round should remain.

On the names, those are absolutely negotiable.

And on LegComm, it's a bit of a chaotic multi-faceted thing in my head and it's somewhat hard for me to try to put that into cogent thoughts. Here's a very short rundown: First, there is significant overlap in what the proposed CSI and LegComm would need for their work anyway; one of the many reasons we and pretty much any other remotely sizable region has these sorts of checks is for counterintelligence purposes, which is broadly under CSI's purview. Second, it's already hard to find LegComm members as it is, and one of the benefits that I'm hoping of a split CRS + junior/senior split within CSI is to no longer have the CRS be this ostensibly exclusive and hard-to-get-into club of oligarchs, but rather that the barrier for entry into the general business of what the CRS' responsibility had been is lower while at the same time still ensuring confidentiality and classification through the senior CSI members.

Bleh. Maybe I can formulate that better after a good night's sleep. But I hope my intent here comes across.

**Belschaft** · 12-07-2018, 12:42 PM

I get what you are aiming for Roa, I just don’t agree with giving a self-appointed and unaccountable body with a security/intelligence mandate that much control over our electoral and legislative processes.

Broadly speaking, I think that people making decisions about/for TSP should be elected or appointed, with proper oversight and accountability to some other body. I recognise the realities of GP as well as anyone - hell, better than most tbh - but there are fundemental principles at stake.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 12-07-2018, 01:34 PM by Belschaft.)

Bzerneleg · 12-07-2018, 09:54 PM

(11-13-2018, 09:51 AM)Roavin Wrote:
The CSI handles Legislator Applications.

The CSI is appointed by itself and approved by the assembly.

Doesn't it mean that the CSI gets to select Legislators that will eventually decide on whether to approve CSI nominees?

I'd rather leave the job for the Legislator Committee to handle.

BZERNELEG

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

Positions

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

Jebediah · 12-08-2018, 06:42 AM

(12-06-2018, 08:29 PM)Belschaft Wrote: though those names suck

I've already suggested some really good names on this page.

(This post was last modified: 12-08-2018, 06:43 AM by Jebediah.)