(11-14-2018, 07:16 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: People are saying this thing is bad because of the whole oligarchy thing, the main issue with the current proposal is that it is not detailed enough so that we can give a prediction about the performance and if it will work as intended or not.

Yeah, I didn't want to be too detailed yet. I have ideas, but I think it's worth discussing everything generally. We're not in a rush here.

(11-14-2018, 07:16 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: Make the DC as strict as the CRS and say hello to rejection by gameside no matter how much propaganda work you put in, or loosen it, which means a populist can overcome the system using the same method as IoU and sneak in which defeats the purpose (as I assume, is to stop voter manipulators) in the first place.

Well, populist demagogues generally, but yeah. I agree. I think we can find and use a good middle ground.

(11-14-2018, 07:16 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: On the CSI, letting them appoint themselves is a bad idea for various reasons: Concentrated powers, current CSI members may not be too bright so they get in incompetent people,... (Give me an institution in TSP's 16-years history that appointed themselves and actually worked), maybe restrict it to just recommendation and let the Cabinet do the job like with the LegComm?

IIRC Glen had argued for CRS appointing itself back during the GC, maybe he can elaborate. I can see benefits of either approach and this is surely something to discuss.