No. No. No. No. No. Heck no. I refuse. No. You're giving this institution too much power.

Elaborate? Which of the two institutions? How much? 

This is speculation, but if Ryccia is referring to the CSI, then I would agree that the proposed institution would have immense power, without sufficient checks.

Reply

You are proposing a system were an unelected, self-selecting group is in charge of;

1. Deciding who can become a legislator
2. Deciding who can stand to be Delegate

It's almost like you went out of your way to create the most oligarchic and least democratic system you could think of. This is an absurd proposal, completely out of keeping with fifteen years of TSP's traditions. It is the apparatus of a security state that makes Balder look transparent and democratic.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

Im not saying that the CSI/DC will, but they absolutely could refrain from adding a high influence, high endo nation who could otherwise be a great delegate from the DC. Im not against a vetting process for those who want to run for delegate, though. Added security is always better, but not at the cost of fair elections.

If you want a figurehead delegate, we should just dissolve the democracy and go with a monarchy...

"...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

Alright, I'll go with each and every point:
- The acronyms are beautiful.
- Get a better acronym
- See above
- I can definitely see the CSI exterting great influence over the election of the Delegacy, with them vetting the DC and all
- K (I worry about the CSI influence tho)
- That is absolutely atrocious. The current system allows for both communities to have a say. This is just an oligarchic, limited pool of candidates vetted by the CSI, which I can totally see becoming a cabal.
- Have more than one body doing that...oh, wait, we already have that.
- K
- Yeah, but what would this even serve?

You gave the CSI and the DC too much influence and/or power mate

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

"The 1% is like a 1% battery charge. It will die out if it is not charged(the charge is the 99%). But if you don't charge it, it will die for sure, sooner or later"
- Me (2001- Present)

"Change is the world's blood"
- Me (2001-Present)

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

(This post was last modified: 11-13-2018, 02:52 PM by Ryccia.)

Reply

Just to be clear, I'm assuming the CSI would still be subject to recall and would need to be appointed/approved by someone no?

Couple other things in now particular order:

Currently, LegComm has the power to block legislators and thereby block delegate candidates. 

All said, I don't think the split of the CRS into two groups is nearly as extreme as it sounds.

Nor, do I think the intention of the proposal is to make the CSI a completely unaccountable institution.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Im not saying that the CSI/DC will, but they absolutely could refrain from adding a high influence, high endo nation who could otherwise be a great delegate from the DC. Im not against a vetting process for those who want to run for delegate, though. Added security is always better, but not at the cost of fair elections.

If you want a figurehead delegate, we should just dissolve the democracy and go with a monarchy...

The delegate already is a figurehead position and had been since, what, the 2016 GC? The absolute power of the delegate's in-game position is completely tempered by our Charter and all the real power is the hands of the cabinet anyway.

Essentially the delegate has two main responsibilities: regional security and as a focal point for gameside interaction, much of which involves passing people on to the relevant authorities, usually being the cabinet, like a glorified receptionist. (Not that I didn't enjoy all this, but that's the reality of the current role). Exercise of other powers, like assigning ROs is all mandated by election results, etc and so is effectively ceremonial.

Elected figureheads like this are completely a thing IRL, though and I see no reason why being a figurehead role means it has to become a monarchical or permanent position.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

I think whether this proposal becomes a reasonable way to make things more streamlined or an extension of oligarchy largely depends not on the actual law, but on how it is socially interpreted. If the DC is seen as closer to being like the Assembly than like the current CRS on the scale of exclusiveness, we're good. If, though, it retains the perception of exclusiveness at the level of the current CRS, this proposal will turn into nothing short of self-regenerating oligarchy.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

Reply

Given the adverse reaction of many Legislators thus far, I think public opinion, as it stands, is decidedly against such an arrangement. I cannot imagine that the response of the game-side community would be any better. If anything, these reforms may be greeted with even greater animosity as already within the Assembly, members who would logically compose a majority the Defence Council have signalled their opposition. What is the likelihood that game-side would vote to implement these changes ...

I myself am supportive of separating the CRS into the two institutions you propose. However, I think to counter the perception that the CSI has too great a role, it would be better to retain the Legislator Committee as it is and explicitly define the process of application approval to include the input of the CSI. At present, although the CRS has the authority to do so, it does not make its views known to the LegComm.

I'm less certain of your suggestions to reform the Delegacy. The Charter underscores the nature of the Coalition as being a duality between game-side and the forum. Removing forum approval in a Delegate election goes against that principle.

(This post was last modified: 11-14-2018, 01:36 AM by Amerion.)

Reply

This is speculation, but if Ryccia is referring to the CSI, then I would agree that the proposed institution would have immense power, without sufficient checks.

It would be relatively powerful, true, but that doesn't mean there can't or wouldn't be checks and balances. Recalls are always an option, as Tsu noted.

You are proposing a system were an unelected, self-selecting group is in charge of;

1. Deciding who can become a legislator
2. Deciding who can stand to be Delegate

It's almost like you went out of your way to create the most oligarchic and least democratic system you could think of. This is an absurd proposal, completely out of keeping with fifteen years of TSP's traditions. It is the apparatus of a security state that makes Balder look transparent and democratic.

This is ridiculously over the top, and I've explained why on Discord last night. To summarize: This is not any different than what we have with LegComm already, and the argument that this is less democratic is sophistry.

Anybody can be on the Defense Council. Anybody can be recalled from the Defense Council or the CSI. Any action by the DC or CSI is still principally reviewable by the Court for legality. Any appointments to DC or CSI must still be approved by the assembly. Just like it is now! Where's the problem?


I'll just echo what Seraph said, much more eloquently than what I could have.

Just to be clear, I'm assuming the CSI would still be subject to recall and would need to be appointed/approved by someone no?

Aye.

- I can definitely see the CSI exterting great influence over the election of the Delegacy, with them vetting the DC and all

The CSI doesn't actually have any direct impact on Delegate elections. The only power they'd have, as I imagine it, is to approve (or, if we want to flip the terminology, to deny) an applicant to the DC. Whoever ends up running for Delegate from the DC is out of their hands entirely.

- That is absolutely atrocious. The current system allows for both communities to have a say. This is just an oligarchic, limited pool of candidates vetted by the CSI, which I can totally see becoming a cabal.

I'm less certain of your suggestions to reform the Delegacy. The Charter underscores the nature of the Coalition as being a duality between game-side and the forum. Removing forum approval in a Delegate election goes against that principle.

First, both still have a say. The forum government is still the one that would approve people for DC status, and the region itself decides who the Delegate is. It also continues TSP's trajectory of game-side empowerment by not just spoon-feeding them two candidates that the "forum oligarchy establishment" deemed acceptable this time, but rather by giving them the choice of any DC nation that wants to run (and that could be 10 of them in theory).

But I'm not hell-bent on that at all - if we want to keep the dual forum/region election for Delegate, that's absolutely not the hill I'm going to die on.

Second, I should note that I imagine the DC to be much more open in its membership than the CRS currently is.

You gave the CSI and the DC too much influence and/or power mate

Not really. CSI and DC wouldn't really have more power than the current LegComm+CRS combined (a bit, because I generally want the CSI or CRS or whichever regional security institution to have a bit more teeth to it).

I think whether this proposal becomes a reasonable way to make things more streamlined or an extension of oligarchy largely depends not on the actual law, but on how it is socially interpreted. If the DC is seen as closer to being like the Assembly than like the current CRS on the scale of exclusiveness, we're good. If, though, it retains the perception of exclusiveness at the level of the current CRS, this proposal will turn into nothing short of self-regenerating oligarchy.

I'd interpret it to be a nice middle ground between the Assembly and the CRS in terms of openness/exclusiveness. I'm imagining the DC's membership to settle at around 10-15 members at any one time.

Given the adverse reaction of many Legislators thus far, I think public opinion, as it stands, is decidedly against such an arrangement.

Not really, it's just that the ones against it have been loudest. It's the typical 80/20 principle at work! There are 3 people supportive (Tsunamy, Amerion, Roavin), 3 people disagreeing (Ryccia, Belschaft, Rebs), and everybody else was on the fence or has not expressed an opinion. That's really not a decisive measure of the public opinion!

I cannot imagine that the response of the game-side community would be any better. If anything, these reforms may be greeted with even greater animosity as already within the Assembly, members who would logically compose a majority the Defence Council have signalled their opposition. What is the likelihood that game-side would vote to implement these changes ...

It's all a matter of framing, as I mentioned on Discord. If an eventual bill resulting from this thread is sold as "this takes democracy away from the Delegate elections", of course nobody will vote for it. That's not what this bill would be, though.

I myself am supportive of separating the CRS into the two institutions you propose. However, I think to counter the perception that the CSI has too great a role, it would be better to retain the Legislator Committee as it is and explicitly define the process of application approval to include the input of the CSI. At present, although the CRS has the authority to do so, it does not make its views known to the LegComm.

I merged it deliberately to make it less "messy", and make information transfer easier. We want to be able to admit people to Legislator status fast, so it's worth streamlining.

Reply

I want to see the detailed requirements for the DC and CSI. 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. 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?

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.

Chief Supervising Armchair

Reply