[DISCUSSION] Regional Security |
I don't hate IoU. >_>
(11-15-2018, 08:44 AM)Amerion Wrote:(11-15-2018, 08:39 AM)Roavin Wrote: I don't hate IoU. >_> 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.
I am an Island and IoU's name is foreshadowing.
(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. Im just going to leave this here (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
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 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 ~
(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.
Bumping this discussion ...
(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: Do you think the LegComm should still exist or should the CSI take over its functions?
I think LegComm should exist still.
|
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |