Hello, I am new here (approved yesterday). I do not have any background with regional security matters, so if I say anything that is uninformed or naïve then it probably is. Nonetheless, I have some contributions I would like to make. 

I have put my thoughts in the spoilers below. I am not 100% certain on any of them, they are just the things which have popped into my head. Also, can someone please enlighten me on why the Election Commissioner is appointed by the CRS/will be appointed by the CSI. I am sure there is a good reason, I just can’t clearly see it at the moment.

DC and CSI

• If I understand correctly, the DC would have practical power over border controls and endorsements but the decisions on when they should be used would sit with the CSI, who gather and assess intelligence. Is that interpretation correct?
  
•  
  
• If so, I think it is acceptable to have the CSI approve DC members on the criteria listed (have I summarised them correctly?): minimum endorsements, minimum influence, and not denied by the CSI based on security grounds
  
•  
  
• I think having appointments to the CSI made by Cabinet and approved by the Assembly is a sensible proposal
  
•  
  
• I think elevation from a junior to a senior member should either be automatic (e.g. after six months of service) or on nomination from the Cabinet to the Assembly, so as to prevent the CSI from effectively locking out half of its members
  
•  
  
• I feel it would be good to have clearly defined criteria for what junior CSI members can do/see, so it is less of a “because the senior CSI members said so.” I do not know what exactly this encompasses, however.
  

Delegacy

• Legislator requirement: I understand this is in relation to being involved in the forum-side. However, could the requirement be a current legislator or current/previous local council service? If the Assembly gets to vote on the candidates anyway, then they should not elect someone who is not interested in the forums anyway. However, this is more of a minor gripe.
  
•  
  
• DC requirement: if I understand this correctly, any candidates for delegate would require a minimum number of endorsements and a minimum regional influence (they do not have to be approved by the CSI). Is that correct? Can someone please enlighten me about the reasoning for this. If there is a requirement to have held office, then what would the endorsement/regional influence requirements actually be there for?
  
•  
  
• Service requirement: if I understand this correctly, it would be that candidates must have a minimum amount of service in an appointed or elected position. If so, I do not quite agree at the moment. The premise seems to be that you want people who know the region well. Being an office bearer would be useful. However, that is not what minimum requirements are about. My current position is that people should be able to run if they have given a minimum period of service to the region, not just in an elected or appointed position. I think that perhaps it should be:
  •  
    
  • Minimum six months (or maybe even one year) active service in one of the following: legislator, military, (maybe) ambassador
    
  •  
    
  • The above requirement does not apply to those who have served in an elected or appointed position (incl. local council) for three months (or six months)
    
  •  
    
• In any event, this is me trying to wrap my head around things and not wanting to unduly restrict the election of the Delegate. However, since I am new, it is harder to grasp what are necessary requirements and what are extra precautions.
  

Legislator Status

I am wary of the CSI handling legislator status, however, I would be satisfied with it if there was a safeguard. Below is one I thought up, I think it would work well but others may work better (i.e. if someone has a better system, I am not overly attached to my idea):

• When legislator status is denied or revoked, the Assembly is notified
  
•  
  
• The Assembly can (by simple majority) demand evidence from the CSI on why it denied or revoked legislator status
  
•  
  
• Once the Assembly has been given time to review the evidence (not sure, maybe a week), it can vote with a 2/3rd supermajority to override the CSI
  
•  
  
• If the vote to override the CSI fails but gets more than 1/3^rd of the vote, the evidence is referred to the High Court
  
•  
  
• The High Court may overrule the CSI’s decision if and only if it finds the decision to be manifestly unreasonable given the evidence
  

This provides for a review mechanism on the CSI decision and direct accountability to the Assembly. By having a very high threshold of a 2/3rd supermajority, decisions should be unlikely to be overridden and should only be overridden for a good reason. If the CSI’s decision can’t even get the support of 1-in-3 of those voting then that decision may seriously have an issue. Further, if 1-in-3 of those voting think the decision should not be upheld, then having the court look over it would be good (in case the decision was a bad one done against an unpopular person).

If the thresholds I have listed are too low, you could go for 75% supermajority override of the CSI and 50% majority to refer it to the High Court. My initial opinion is that this may be too high, particularly if the decision is made against an unpopular individual.

Again, someone else may have better ideas for safeguards, this is just what I came up with.

Thank you for considering my views and also for your patience as I wrap my head around all of this. Sorry for the extra dot points everywhere, I wanted spacing between them and that is what I got.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

(This post was last modified: 12-19-2018, 10:51 PM by Nat.)

Reply

Welcome to TSP, Nat

RE: Service requirement for Delegate... The point behind an elected/appointed position (serving in a ministry, cabinet, LC, etc.) is to keep the delegate position from falling into the wrong hands. Anyone can join the region with a puppet and garner support from the masses in-game. Id like to think the process of joining the forums and actually putting in some time before being elected to a fairly important, security-based job would weed out people who werent as trustworthy. It also gives the CRS/CSI the time to find anyone who may be trying to conceal their identity, which has happened a few times.

"...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!!

TSP Forum & Discord Mod (4/19-Present)
Niagara Founder (2018-Present)

TSP MoRA (6/19-10/19)
TSP Asso. Justice (4/19-3/20)
TSP Deputy CoA (8/18 - 4/19)
TSP CSS (2/14-10/14)
TSP High Court Justice (4/14 - 5/14)
TSP CoA (12/13 - 3/14)
TSP Vice Delegate (8/13 - 12/13)
TSP MoS (9/12 - 12/12)
TSP MoFA (5/12 - 9/12)
TSP Forum Admin (2014)
TSP Craziest (12/12 - 3/13 -- 8/13 - 10/14 -- 2/15 - 6/17 -- 2/18 - 6/19)
Former Founder of Richmond
Former something in Europia
Former something in Balder

Quotes

5:19PM, 3/25/12
Hileville - LR and Rebel-topia are going to break the forum. 103 posts between the two of them so far today
LadyRebels - Yes we are implementing our evil plan to take over, just wanted ya'll to know that

---

[1:22 PM] Rebeltopia: *beats up the Polandar Bear*
[1:22 PM] Polandar Bear: :dizzy_face:
[1:23 PM] Polandar Bear: I'm endangered!
[1:23 PM] Rebeltopia: Endangered of being beated up!
[1:23 PM] Polander Bear: "Beated up" - Rebeltopia, 2018

---

[6:09 PM] Seraph: Who knew ORCS could be so informative?
[6:10 PM] Nakari: ORCS is truly ORChestral to our understanding of law.
[6:11 PM] Seraph: It's the ORCSue of all our legal knowledge.
[6:11 PM] Nakari: its magical. must have been created with sORCSery.

---

Nakarisaurus: islands are you just jealous of the boots
Roavin: islands is jealous of the entire package
Satan: ^ this
Islands of Unakarity: Im jealous of the wife, and that mora election a while back
Roavin: punnuendo both intended and not intended

Reply

@Rebeltopia: I see. However, in regards to security, how is someone putting in time through an appointed/elected forum position different from putting in time as a legislator or local councilor? I understand there is a difference in the level of experience gained, but cannot currently see how that relates to trustworthiness. I am sure the reasoning is obvious to most people experienced with the region, I am just having a difficult time wrapping my head around it.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

@Rebeltopia: I see. However, in regards to security, how is someone putting in time through an appointed/elected forum position different from putting in time as a legislator or local councilor? I understand there is a difference in the level of experience gained, but cannot currently see how that relates to trustworthiness. I am sure the reasoning is obvious to most people experienced with the region, I am just having a difficult time wrapping my head around it.

I think Rebeltopia included Local Councillor in his list. Notwithstanding, from my perspective, I would be infinitely more inclined to support (or more accurately, trust) a candidate for Delegate if they have served a period of time in an elected position because it exemplifies to me that the individual has to some extent, the support of the community.

Certainly, you can indeed build a record as a Legislator but simply being a Legislator is not, in my opinion, sufficient for a position of such importance as it requires you to do nothing but vote and 'gift' the Chair an occasional cookie every now and then ( ). Contrastingly, serving as a Cabinet Minister, Local Councillor, etc, necessitates greater responsibilities. Whether it be moderating disputes and debates in the case of a Local Councillor, or arranging festivities as a Minister of Regional Affairs.

I think fundamentally, it can be summarised as; if you do more things, there will be more for the electorate to scrutinise, and, if the things you have accomplished trend towards the good in the good-bad spectrum, then you'll have greater standing in any election.

Reply

I think fundamentally, it can be summarised as; if you do more things, there will be more for the electorate to scrutinise, and, if the things you have accomplished trend towards the good in the good-bad spectrum, then you'll have greater standing in any election.

Thanks for your response @Amerion

I agree with your insights. However, it seems to concern a candidate's electability and suitability, not whether there is an actual security problem with them holding the Delegate role. I am inclined to think that less suitable candidates would not get elected as Delegate. Is that the case? If so, why is it necessary to bar them from running altogether? If they are not a bad faith actor then why shouldn't the democratic process be trusted to determine their suitability?

I ask these questions not to argue against you. I ask to understand why you hold the view that you do, so that I may come to my own conclusion.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

Thanks for your response @Amerion

I agree with your insights. However, it seems to concern a candidate's electability and suitability, not whether there is an actual security problem with them holding the Delegate role. I am inclined to think that less suitable candidates would not get elected as Delegate. Is that the case? If so, why is it necessary to bar them from running altogether? If they are not a bad faith actor then why shouldn't the democratic process be trusted to determine their suitability?

I ask these questions not to argue against you. I ask to understand why you hold the view that you do, so that I may come to my own conclusion.

In a certain respect, it is also a question of security and relates to the candidate's fitness to hold such a 'delicate' office. What I mean by 'delicate' is that once a nation ascends to the delegacy, by virtue of in-game mechanisms, it is very hard to dislodge any rogue actor. They could, for instance, appoint their associates to become Regional Officers with border control and hence stymie, or at the very least, lessen the success rate of any liberation effort. This is all the more concerning given our plethora of adversaries who would surely squeal at the prospect of aiding chaos in TSP.

When viewed in this prism, it is logical if not necessary that we should impose further restrictions on the delegacy. Of course, many of us championing such measures understand the viewpoint of those who think these reforms are solely to restrict the delegacy from the masses. And to them, I would respectfully argue rather unashamedly that yes, I have absolutely no issue whatsoever if any Tom, Dick or Harry (even if they are the most delightful of persons) feel the delegacy is not meant for them because the fact of the matter is that it is not an ordinary office but one of immense trust. I shall conclude this lovely, if not unnecessary rant by drawing a comparison with the Queen; I don't believe any reasonable person expects the monarchy, or any head of state for that matter, to be open to an ordinary citizen with an unremarkable record of accomplishments. This is our Queen, and we should treat the position with the reverence it deserves.

(This post was last modified: 12-21-2018, 08:28 AM by Amerion.)

Reply

This also relates to the broader question of what kind of position does the region envision the delegacy to be. Is it a position that should be open to anyone, including entry-level politicians who want to make a difference? Or is it a head of state position that should be held by experienced political leaders who have a record of being trustworthy and could be trusted with the literal keys to the region?

That kind of question needs to be answered if we're talking about election requirements.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

This also relates to the broader question of what kind of position does the region envision the delegacy to be. Is it a position that should be open to anyone, including entry-level politicians who want to make a difference? Or is it a head of state position that should be held by experienced political leaders who have a record of being trustworthy and could be trusted with the literal keys to the region?

That kind of question needs to be answered if we're talking about election requirements.

I would be inclined to support the latter.

A number of positions already exist for "entry-level politicians who want to make a difference" — they can propose new laws or amendments as a Legislator, serve the gameside community as a Local Councillor, represent TSP as an ambassador, and more. The delegacy, by contrast, is a position held by a single individual who is granted not only significant in-game powers but also is displayed prominently to anyone who visits the region webpage. In other words, the delegacy is not only a head of state position but also but also one critical to regional security (to the best of my understanding, at least; I won't pretend to be a regional security expert).

 

I think fundamentally, it can be summarised as; if you do more things, there will be more for the electorate to scrutinise, and, if the things you have accomplished trend towards the good in the good-bad spectrum, then you'll have greater standing in any election.

Thanks for your response @Amerion

I agree with your insights. However, it seems to concern a candidate's electability and suitability, not whether there is an actual security problem with them holding the Delegate role. I am inclined to think that less suitable candidates would not get elected as Delegate. Is that the case? If so, why is it necessary to bar them from running altogether? If they are not a bad faith actor then why shouldn't the democratic process be trusted to determine their suitability?

I ask these questions not to argue against you. I ask to understand why you hold the view that you do, so that I may come to my own conclusion.  

Pardon my intrusion upon this line of conversation, but I think the proposition that our democratic processes provide an inherent screening mechanism is an interesting one.

@Nat:
I think that these proposed reforms are largely a response to how quickly someone, Islands of Unity, in this case, can attain quite notable and powerful positions by adopting a "populist" approach — i.e. reaching out to everyone, including Legislators who aren't particularly active, and campaign personally. That's how I understand it, at least. That's not to say that these reforms are not good, nor to say that these ideas were specifically crafted as a political response. To understand the hesitation to rely on democratic processes to ensure only suitable and trustworthy candidates are elected, however, it's important to understand the context.

The primary purpose of Roavin's reforms was regional security, and asking all candidates for the delegacy to obtain a reasonably high number of endorsements and amount of influence, which they'll need regardless if they are indeed elected Delegate, isn't unreasonable at all, in my view. Democratic processes, however, are most likely to be focused on each candidate's positions and beliefs rather than their endorsement count and are likely to neglect the logistical, if you will, aspects of the election and transfer of power.

The other force at play, I would think, is that the populist base simply isn't voicing their opinion here, and that's quite logical — the players that tend to vote for populists are generally less active in the Assembly to begin with. As a result, most of the opinions in this thread are from those players most invested in our legislative and democratic processes, the players who are most active in our government, and these players are going to have more reservations about electing a populist to a position as powerful as the delegacy. Amerion's post sums this viewpoint up pretty accurately, but I'll offer a quick summary: it's much more comforting to trust someone who has served well in multiple high-ranking positions than someone who has just demonstrated an ability to persuade people to vote for them.

All of this is a broad generalization, of course; TSP is not composed of populists and non-populists, and it's not as if anyone who opposes these reforms is a populist and anyone who doesn't is a member of the political establishment.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

Reply

Thank you all for your insight.

I can see that the game mechanics give the Delegate quite a lot of power. I agree that we should not want this to fall into the hands of someone who is going to abuse this power. From what I have been reading, I guess it boils down to how we determine if someone has only good intentions and whether competency is part of that definition.

Presently, I am not convinced that it is necessary to impose these additional restrictions on Delegate candidacy. However, I do see that it could be wise and will probably not present a big issue since people can gain experience while working their way up to the role. In view of this, I think I could get on board depending on the exact details in the final proposal.

I currently think that LC membership should be counted towards the service requirement. If I understand it correctly, the LC does wield a reasonable amount of power. Importantly though, it means that eligibility (as opposed to election) is not determined solely by the forum community. Even if none of these candidates get elected, it gives them a chance to be considered. Obviously, being new, I may have missed something in my consideration of this.

There was one thing that I was wondering: would the service requirement relate only to current service or also to past service (perhaps within a certain period of time)? Currently, I do not see any substantial reason why running for Delegate should be restricted to those who are presently serving in a position. If I am not mistaken, the benefits of having a service requirement would still be met if candidates have had past service (provided that it is not from a long time ago). Perhaps, though, I am overlooking something.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

There was one thing that I was wondering: would the service requirement relate only to current service or also to past service (perhaps within a certain period of time)? Currently, I do not see any substantial reason why running for Delegate should be restricted to those who are presently serving in a position. If I am not mistaken, the benefits of having a service requirement would still be met if candidates have had past service (provided that it is not from a long time ago). Perhaps, though, I am overlooking something.

Yes, past service will be counted as well like the requirements of the current CRS.

Chief Supervising Armchair

Reply