(11-15-2018, 07:33 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: Here are some ideas to fix issues that are attempted to be fixed with Roavin's proposal without making the whole thing into an oligarchy:
...
- Satisfying a certain influence, endorsement, legislator/local council duration requirement like the current CRS will make you eligible for running for the Delegacy, no DC membership is needed. This eliminates populists like IoU as you need to stay in the region for a long time for this. Voting will occur on both the forum and gameside as original, I don't know why you should remove this, the delegate needs to be aware of forumside matters. A populist such as IoU won't make it through these extensive requirements and lobbying for gameside votes isn't an easy task. We should worry about a Tim winning the delegacy, you can fix this just by removing them for security reasons. They can appeal the decision via the High Court. If your trustworthiness is low to the point you can't join the DC (for the Delegacy as in the original proposal) then why you should be a legislator anyway.
...

I'm opposed to the influence restriction on the delegacy, especially if it is set at a very high level. If someone who has had a long career in SPSF (and therefore usually a low endo count in TSP) were to decide to retire and run for the delegacy, they would have to wait for a fairly long time to build up the influence required. This could discourage people from joining SPSF, as not only would it limit their endo count (enough to put some long time -tarters off) but they would be risking leaving themselves in a position where they cannot continue with SPSF and are simply forced to bide their time gaining influence should they return to politics later on.