Yes.

Reply

I know I'm a bit late to this, but I'll still say this; why would we dissolve the LegComm?

AIDENFIEELD

Legislator in TSP | Active User of the RMB | Former Local Councillor | Member of The Ministry Of Regional Affairs

Reply

I know I'm a bit late to this, but I'll still say this; why would we dissolve the LegComm?

As currently outlined, the functions of the LegComm are folded into the CSI.

Reply

I know I'm a bit late to this, but I'll still say this; why would we dissolve the LegComm?

As currently outlined, the functions of the LegComm are folded into the CSI. 

Okay, thank you.

But also, isn't the DC just the same thing as the CRS?  So to prevent confusion among nations that aren't on the forums, should we just keep it the CRS?

AIDENFIEELD

Legislator in TSP | Active User of the RMB | Former Local Councillor | Member of The Ministry Of Regional Affairs

Reply

I know I'm a bit late to this, but I'll still say this; why would we dissolve the LegComm?

As currently outlined, the functions of the LegComm are folded into the CSI. 

Okay, thank you.

But also, isn't the DC just the same thing as the CRS?  So to prevent confusion among nations that aren't on the forums, should we just keep it the CRS?

The responsibilities of the CRS are being split up between the DC and the CSI. Currently, the CRS is both the high endorsement, high influence nations, as well as the individuals deciding over security and intelligence matters. The idea here is to split those two items into the DC and the CSI, respectively.

Reply

So since the discussion on this important reform is dead, let's revive it with some proposal on the design. The green lines are my proposal, everything else is already existing stuff.

I/ CSI
- Makes decisions on regional security and conducts intelligence matters.
- Handles legislator applications.
- Enforces temporary security precautions last a minimum of 4-weeks, can be longer if Court confirms reasons of suspicion (Maybe too excessive, HC can already review any security action. Suggestion: Allow the Assembly to disapprove any extension beyond 4-weeks with super-majority vote):

• Suspension of standing in elections or being appointed.
  
• Suspension of holding government office or participating in a government institution (A temporary removal from office)
  
• Suspension of gameside regional officers' powers or service as officer.
  
• Suspension of maintaining a WA nation and restriction on endorsements of a WA nation. (Set the general endorsement cap too)
  
• Suspension of legislatorship.
  

- Temporary precautions can be made permanent (turns them into prohibitions/removals):

• Prohibition of/official removal from holding cabinet-level office, the Court, the Delegacy requires an investigation (should be optional?) and an assembly vote per standard recall procedure. (Rationale: More check on this grand power of interfering with other branches of government, 4-weeks minimum security precaution with unavoidable extension by the High Court is enough to stop unwanted actions before actually confirming those actions as unlawful)
  

- Conducts investigation, utilizes its security powers against any person who refuses to cooperate with an investigation.
- Structure: Junior CSI appointed by senior CSI members, give the CSI the discretion on determining the powers, appointment procedures, and permissions of CSI ranks. The entire thing needs to be made public. Requires an off-site admin to be in the CSI.
- CSI members appointed by the Cabinet or the CSI themselves, appointees need to be legislator for more than a year. Appointments require assembly vote with super majority (Approval by the own CSI is probably unnecessary as senior CSI rank should prevent bad actors who made it in into the CSI from doing damage.)
- Senior CSI members can suspend membership of junior CSI members (Formalizes a specific check on bad CSI members). The Assembly can recall the CSI under normal recall procedure (super-majority). (Last ditch solution if the CSI fall into flame) (Possible catastrophic conflicts between junior and senior members may happen)
- Appoints Intel Coordinator for intelligence matters.
- Issues proscriptions.
- High Court can review any security action.
- The Assembly can overturn any permanent security precaution with super-majority vote. High Court can review any security action.
- Must report the Cabinet and the Assembly (except sensitive matters) on any security action.

Everything from now on is my proposal

II/ Defense Council (DC)
- Holds large number of endorsements and influence to exercise security action (By any mean on gameside, commonly ban/eject) decided by other institutions (mostly the CSI) on gameside. Is primarily a gameside institution aside from the LC.
- DC members are allowed/required to have more endorsements than the cap.
- DC members are nominated by Cabinet or CSI or the Delegate or self-nomination, require approval from CSI (a critical barrier to avoid coups via RO) and the Assembly (simple majority vote) (Similar to current CRS)
- Any nation is required to have a specified number of endorsements and influence (Maybe decided by CSI instead of laws?) before they can be nominated. (Legislator/LC tenure length is unnecessary here due to the CSI already do the work of vetting out bad actors)
- Delegate should be ex-officio members of DC? (Ease of applying BC regulations below)
- Can be recalled by assembly under existing Charter procedure.
- CSI can suspend/remove DC membership as stated above.

III/ The Delegacy
- Elected/recalled by existing procedure (Two-step voting). However, one needs to satisfy a specified influence, endorsement level (same as DC?) and time as legislator/local council members before they can run for election.
- Delegate should be ex-officio members of DC? (Ease of applying BC regulations below)
Note: CSI can already stop suspected candidates from running for delegate elections so additional checks such as DC membership is unnecessary. 

IV/ Border Control regulation
- DC, Delegate can banject low-influence nations (spammers, trollers), CSI can overturn this.
- DC, Delegate can banject non-low-influence nations with approval from CSI.
- BC officers must inform CSI, Cabinet on any border control action.
- DC, Delegate can appoint/remove (if possible) any nation as RO with BC powers with approval from CSI. (LC maybe the common candidate)

Possible bad scenarios and how the proposal may deal with it:
- Bad guys got into DC  -> CSI can stop, should be prevented by CSI approval of DC nominees
- Bad guy is running for delegate -> Mechanical requirements should limit this since the likelihood of obviously bad actors like LWU members spending more than 1 year of being active in a region for couping without being discovered is very low.  CSI can suspend suspicious candidates. (Can readily prevent the most common coup cause: Internal conflicts such as Timscade or the 2015-2016 drama)
- The delegate coups -> DC and high-endorsement high-influence nations (with SWAN's help) can help outside liberation force and limit the damage. (This is pretty much an exceptionally bad scenario and we can only limit further damage here)
- Bad guys got into CSI -> Senior CSI members can suspense bad members and an Assembly vote will remove them.
- BC ROs go rogue -> DC/CSI can order a removal
- Cabinet get controlled by bad actors -> CSI can suspend their offices and conduct investigation, Assembly can vote them down.
- Assembly get manipulated -> Super-majority votes should limit this. Some counter campaigning, information outreach (Regional Affairs matters are related to security to some extent), legislatorship suspension/removal on bad actors can prevent damage.
- High Court for some reasons get controlled by bad actors -> The big security hole is here. Only the Assembly can save the day by voting down HC members, however, the fact that HC being shady and giving out rulings which go against proper security decisions for their own benefits isn't always visible. CSI can suspend HC members and they should give elaborate evidence to convince the Assembly. 
- CSI go rogue -> Assembly can vote them down. Decoupling the influence/endorsement duty from CSI helps make this so much easier.
- DC go rogue -> CSI can order the Delegate to remove them.
- DC and Delegate go rogue -> Pretty much the big RIP. Recovering is possible but uncooperative DC will turn this into the most difficult military gameplay challenge of all time. Utilization of high-endorsements nations (SWAN) is the only thing that can help us. Abolition of endorsement cap when appropriate (CRS and delegate has endo count and influence level similar to TNP) may help these nations more helpful by having more influence.

Apocalypse scenario: Cabinet, CSI and Delegate cooperate for bad stuff. This is pretty much BAD. But the offsite admin can go meta and use OOC power to stop this like a regional founder. The Delegate can be dealt with like above. 

Any more terrible scenario is too meta (Like admins kamikaze the whole forum) and forum-move/change out the delegate is unavoidable. 

Possible exploitation paths for outside agents:

• DM campaign Assembly members into voting against CSI/DC members and put bad actors into them. (Kinda unrealistic since CSI can stop this and this is easy to spot, especially with a large number of active and well-integrated legislators)
  
• Spends enough effort to meet delegate mechanic requirements, DM campaigns on non-active legislators and gamesiders and gain votes for the delegacy. (CSI can stop this if they are aware enough, good integration will prevent this altogether)
  
• Being a nice member under-cover (Hard to spot for obvious reasons, CSI can still stop if they are aware enough)
  

Coups from conflicts (Timscade, 2016 drama,...):
This is surely the primary way we can get couped in modern ages, especially if the person in the conflict is a delegate. Keeping a lot of high-endorsements high-influence nations is the only solution to mitigate damage. 

Overall, the CSI/DC proposal will definitely help us more secure by establishing a network of redundancy and dependency between government institutions. Multiple institutions need to cooperate to bring down the system. However, the vulnerability comes from the delegate is simply unavoidable. A previous proposal tries to get rid of this by requiring one to be in the DC in order to run for the delegacy but considering one needs to satisfy the same or similar requirements as DC and the CSI can stop bad delegate candidates, this does nothing more.

Chief Supervising Armchair

(This post was last modified: 07-29-2019, 01:50 PM by USoVietnam.)

Reply

So, we will have a two-tiered cap on endorsements, yes? One for the general population and another for the DC?

Reply

So, we will have a two-tiered cap on endorsements, yes? One for the general population and another for the DC?

No, why DC needs a cap? DC is just CRS but no involvement in forum-side security decisions. CSI is purely a LegComm-like body.

Chief Supervising Armchair

Reply

So, we will have a two-tiered cap on endorsements, yes? One for the general population and another for the DC?

No, why DC needs a cap? DC is just CRS but no involvement in forum-side security decisions. CSI is purely a LegComm-like body.

I assumed a cap was warranted because we wouldn't want a DC to inadvertently become Del?

Reply

So, we will have a two-tiered cap on endorsements, yes? One for the general population and another for the DC?

No, why DC needs a cap? DC is just CRS but no involvement in forum-side security decisions. CSI is purely a LegComm-like body.

I assumed a cap was warranted because we wouldn't want a DC to inadvertently become Del?

Unlikely but no problem if that happens. I forgot to put the delegacy sucession thing into the DC.

Chief Supervising Armchair

(This post was last modified: 07-30-2019, 12:14 AM by USoVietnam.)

Reply