Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 08-03-2019, 08:20 AM

There is no version of this proposal - that we put a small, secretive and self-selecting security body in charge of deciding who can vote and stand in our elections - that I am okay with @Tsunamy. It is not good for our democracy, period.

If these proposals somehow passed the Assembly they would never be approved in-game.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 08-03-2019, 08:41 AM

(08-03-2019, 08:20 AM)Belschaft Wrote: There is no version of this proposal - that we put a small, secretive and self-selecting security body in charge of deciding who can vote and stand in our elections - that I am okay with @Tsunamy. It is not good for our democracy, period.

If these proposals somehow passed the Assembly they would never be approved in-game.

To clarify, my post was more about the structure of the organizations more so than the overall proposal. Having a CSI and a DC puts an extra layer of protection into things like banjections and whatnot since one group would have to approve it and the other would have to carry it out.

Whereas you seem to be taking issue with the the powers and methods of member selection that are ascribed within the bill, @Belschaft. And, which is understandable.

Personally, I'm a fan of having two distinct bodies because then we could have a slew of DC members that also aren't expected to make security decisions — but could be active in the region pending a coup. I'm less sold on the other parts of it.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 08-03-2019, 08:47 AM

Creating a larger group of high-endorsement, high-influence nations that can fight a coup is a great idea - but we've already done that via SWAN.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

ProfessorHenn · 08-03-2019, 09:44 AM

What prevents the Assembly from more closely defining the roles and capabilities of the CRS, assuming these proposals will not pass? Promoting SWAN is something we’ve been doing for a good period of time now, and it’s not like creating a DC will naturally draw high-endorsement nations. There’s a fair bit of work involved to get them up to current CRS levels.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

**Belschaft** · 08-03-2019, 09:55 AM

(08-03-2019, 09:44 AM)ProfessorHenn Wrote: What prevents the Assembly from more closely defining the roles and capabilities of the CRS, assuming these proposals will not pass? Promoting SWAN is something we’ve been doing for a good period of time now, and it’s not like creating a DC will naturally draw high-endorsement nations. There’s a fair bit of work involved to get them up to current CRS levels.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a decent idea, but not the proposal on the table.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**USoVietnam** · 08-03-2019, 11:39 AM

(08-03-2019, 09:44 AM)ProfessorHenn Wrote: What prevents the Assembly from more closely defining the roles and capabilities of the CRS, assuming these proposals will not pass? Promoting SWAN is something we’ve been doing for a good period of time now, and it’s not like creating a DC will naturally draw high-endorsement nations. There’s a fair bit of work involved to get them up to current CRS levels.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The main purpose of the proposal is separating the execution of and decision on security matters into separate bodies. This allows people with little gameside influence (due to R/D for example) to have a say in security decision for example. More explicitly defining the role of the CRS will yield the same thing as the CSI+DC (prohibition of legislatorship for example, which means they can also prohibit election candidates). I don't really get the anti-democracy sentiment here as no office is harder to elect/recall except for the delegacy's mechanic requirements which may not be needed if we have a big endorsement base/DC. Joining CSI doesn't require the CSI's own approval (only cabinet or CSI appointment with assembly approval) unlike the current CRS (Nomination, CRS must approve the nomination before they can be voted on. CRS can legally say "f**k cabinet" and disapprove any nomination they don't like) and the gateway to having more endorsements than the cap is more wide open because the DC is supposed to be a lot bigger than the CSI due to the fact you don't need any security knowledge to join the DC since they don't decide on security matters, just execute them (The entire group of prominent gameside nations such as Local Councilors and frequent SWAN award recipients and RMBers like Poppy, TSSS, Nippon can be added to the DC with no hesitation unlike the current CRS whose addition requires more vetting due to intel matters being handled in the CRS). You can argue that the senior/junior CSI member thing do have problems though (senior members can block out junior members, still fixable via assembly recall). Which is why this is an idea proposal and not a legislation.

Chief Supervising Armchair

(This post was last modified: 08-03-2019, 11:57 AM by USoVietnam.)

***Roavin*** · 11-04-2019, 04:09 PM

From the recap:

Quote:Glen, Tsu become senior CSI

With Glen's impending retirement, we'll have to think of something else. We could leave Glen in there anyway, or just leave it to Tsu, or think of somebody else to get the institution started. Maybe Tsu can weigh in here.

Omega · 11-04-2019, 10:41 PM

So despite the fact that I am generally okay with most of these proposed reforms, I like rules. Under the LPA (1.6) this thread should have been archived on September 3rd. The fact we haven't done anything with these proposals means, in my opinion, they ought to be considered dead, the threads should be archived and we should move on.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

***Roavin*** · 11-05-2019, 02:13 AM

(11-04-2019, 10:41 PM)Omega Wrote: So despite the fact that I am generally okay with most of these proposed reforms, I like rules. Under the LPA (1.6) this thread should have been archived on September 3rd. The fact we haven't done anything with these proposals means, in my opinion, they ought to be considered dead, the threads should be archived and we should move on.

Quote:(6) Any bill, resolution or amendment which has been inactive for more than one month shall be considered defunct and archived, unless the Chair decides otherwise.

There has been so much work put into this that I'd be silly to just archive and let it die now just because.

It's a huge undertaking. It takes time. I could have pushed more, yes, but there's already most of it here.

**USoVietnam** · 11-05-2019, 09:30 AM

(11-05-2019, 02:13 AM)Roavin Wrote:
(11-04-2019, 10:41 PM)Omega Wrote: So despite the fact that I am generally okay with most of these proposed reforms, I like rules. Under the LPA (1.6) this thread should have been archived on September 3rd. The fact we haven't done anything with these proposals means, in my opinion, they ought to be considered dead, the threads should be archived and we should move on.
Quote:(6) Any bill, resolution or amendment which has been inactive for more than one month shall be considered defunct and archived, unless the Chair decides otherwise.

There has been so much work put into this that I'd be silly to just archive and let it die now just because.

It's a huge undertaking. It takes time. I could have pushed more, yes, but there's already most of it here.

It is better to start a new discussion with more well-planned proposals instead.

Chief Supervising Armchair