Users browsing this thread:

***Roavin*** · 11-15-2018, 08:39 AM

I don't hate IoU. >_>

**Amerion** · 11-15-2018, 08:44 AM

(11-15-2018, 08:39 AM)Roavin Wrote: I don't hate IoU. >_>

No, you secretly love him and all this tension between you two is just of another kind. Much like that of a poor quality rom-com Tounge

Nakari · 11-15-2018, 08:49 AM

(11-15-2018, 08:44 AM)Amerion Wrote:
(11-15-2018, 08:39 AM)Roavin Wrote: I don't hate IoU. >_>

No, you secretly love him and all this tension between you two is just of another kind. Much like that of a poor quality rom-com

A rom-com set in a political assembly, where one minister tries to prevent another politician from becoming president and publicly they're rivals, but secretly they're planning a coup together? Sounds juicy. I'd watch it.

***Roavin*** · 11-15-2018, 08:51 AM

I am an Island and IoU's name is foreshadowing.

**Rebeltopia** · 11-15-2018, 12:51 PM

(11-15-2018, 08:14 AM)Nakari Wrote:
Quote: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.

I highly support just putting influence/endorsement/trust restrictions on the delegacy. It accomplishes the goal of restricting the delegacy to trusted individuals, without the impression of a shadow council of pre-picked candidates that the lowly legislators pick their favourite from.

Im just going to leave this here Tounge

(11-14-2018, 09:40 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Id suggest a hard-number stance... Maybe SPDR: 50k, endos: minimum 2/3 of the cap, at least 3 full terms (or the monthly equivalent) in an elected office in TSP. This could be verified by the CSI, and appealable to the court. Its a set regulation, rather than some arbitrary vote by those already in power.

Really, though. This insures that a candidate for Delegate has been vetted and has proved their loyalty to TSP. Its not that hard to put a years time into holding high endos in TSP AND being a Minister.

"...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!!

Quotes

**Somyrion** · 11-15-2018, 06:10 PM

Rereading the original post, I notice that the requirements stated for the DC are that it would have the requirements of the CRS plus additional requirements. Combined with the fact that the DC would be responsible for leading WA and SWAN initiatives -- which are not things easily done by large, Assembly-scale, open groups without leadership -- I can't help but think that the DC would slide into a mroe CRS-like footprint rather than a "halfway-between-the-CRS-and-Assembly" one.

(11-15-2018, 08:14 AM)Nakari Wrote:
Quote: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.

I highly support just putting influence/endorsement/trust restrictions on the delegacy. It accomplishes the goal of restricting the delegacy to trusted individuals, without the impression of a shadow council of pre-picked candidates that the lowly legislators pick their favourite from.

I don't really support using IoU as an example of a populist who won't put time into the region. IoU's been WA and a legislator in TSP for six months now, which I would count as putting time and devoting in-game resources. Intentionally putting things in to eliminate IoU from the delegacy is being just as oligarchic as GP likes to say we are. So can we chill on that

The aim should be to make sure that the potential delegates have all put significant time and devotion into TSP. Anyone (yes, even populists!) should have a chance at the delegacy if they put the commitment into it.

I was going to stay on the fence about the delegate element of Roavin's proposal, but I'll jump off of it to come firmly down in support of this. A council where voters choose only among a preselected few is sketchy and, tbh, a little oligarchical, while influence/endo/trust requirements are just another qualification in a delegate race. While there may be only marginal actual differences between the two systems, the images they send are quite different.

~ Aumeltopia ~

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

***Roavin*** · 11-15-2018, 07:42 PM

(11-15-2018, 06:10 PM)Somyrion Wrote: Rereading the original post, I notice that the requirements stated for the DC are that it would have the requirements of the CRS plus additional requirements. Combined with the fact that the DC would be responsible for leading WA and SWAN initiatives -- which are not things easily done by large, Assembly-scale, open groups without leadership -- I can't help but think that the DC would slide into a mroe CRS-like footprint rather than a "halfway-between-the-CRS-and-Assembly" one.

I probably should have clarified here - I did clarify on Discord that I meant the mechanical requirements (i.e. influence and endos).

(11-15-2018, 06:10 PM)Somyrion Wrote: I was going to stay on the fence about the delegate element of Roavin's proposal, but I'll jump off of it to come firmly down in support of this. A council where voters choose only among a preselected few is sketchy and, tbh, a little oligarchical, while influence/endo/trust requirements are just another qualification in a delegate race. While there may be only marginal actual differences between the two systems, the images they send are quite different.

How does this sound: The requirement for Delegate is "eligible for DC", which somebody already on the DC implicitly is.

**Amerion** · 11-25-2018, 01:05 AM

Bumping this discussion ...

**Amerion** · 11-26-2018, 11:05 AM

(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:

- The CSI can nominate new members for itself, the Cabinet appoints members with approval vote (Make the pass threshold very high or something to reduce politicization) from the Assembly. The Assembly can recall any CSI member like usual. CSI will handle legislator applications or appoint a body that does so. We can use the same procedures to get new CSI members as the current CRS though.
- 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 ...
- The DC stays as what the original proposal said, just that you don't need to be in the DC in order to run for the delegacy. The only power the DC has is that they can hold more endorsements than the endorsement cap, decide the cap (Although I prefer the CSI does this), and run SWAN although I prefer the MoRA does this.

So, DC is for succession in case the delegate disappears, acting as a point for a liberation in case of a coup, and exercising Border Control power. CSI will actually do the security and intelligence work as original. Everything stays the same for the delegate election except you need CRS-level technical requirements in order to run.

Do you think the LegComm should still exist or should the CSI take over its functions?

Benajmin Mark · 11-26-2018, 09:42 PM

I think LegComm should exist still.