Some reminder: The CRS can already order the LegComm to remove legislators or deny applications as they please. So the CSI doesn't have any more security power than the current CRS if we combine the LegComm into the CRS.

I think Roavin needs to emphasize on the fact that the DC is for trusted people who can't and don't like to handle security matters (Like a bunch of very active gamesiders such as Concrete Slab,...) while the CSI is for the boring people who decide on security matters like Glen. 

On the appointment procedure, since the DC is inevitably going to be stacked with gamesiders, there should be a formal self-application process just like with the current CRS (Since cabinet members aren't that good at proactively searching for good gamesiders) while the CSI depends on the normal cabinet appointment method.

Chief Supervising Armchair

Reply

On the appointment procedure, since the DC is inevitably going to be stacked with gamesiders, there should be a formal self-application process just like with the current CRS (Since cabinet members aren't that good at proactively searching for good gamesiders) while the CSI depends on the normal cabinet appointment method.

I would very strongly support a self-application process over a cabinet nomination process for DC for exactly this reason.

~ Aumeltopia ~

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

Reply

The arguments for DC self-application are quite compelling. Would the assembly prefer a separate process for that, or would it also be okay with some unified process that codifies self-application through Cabinet in some fashion so it's still one process?

Reply

The arguments for DC self-application are quite compelling. Would the assembly prefer a separate process for that, or would it also be okay with some unified process that codifies self-application through Cabinet in some fashion so it's still one process?

I think a codified self-application process should be fine

Reply

I think that this sounds excellent! A self application process would be better, I think.

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

Reply

So it'd be something like this for every appointed top-level position:
(1) The individual applies with the Cabinet
(2) The Cabinet, cooperating with the institution being appointed to, vets and checks the applicant
(3) If Cabinet and the institution agree, it goes to Assembly for confirmation

Reply

So it'd be something like this for every appointed top-level position:
(1) The individual applies with the Cabinet
(2) The Cabinet, cooperating with the institution being appointed to, vets and checks the applicant
(3) If Cabinet and the institution agree, it goes to Assembly for confirmation

Could the LegComm look into vetting the candidate instead?

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

Reply

So it'd be something like this for every appointed top-level position:
(1) The individual applies with the Cabinet
(2) The Cabinet, cooperating with the institution being appointed to, vets and checks the applicant
(3) If Cabinet and the institution agree, it goes to Assembly for confirmation

Could the LegComm look into vetting the candidate instead?

I believe any nominee will be a Legislator who should already have been vetted by the CSI/LegComm.

*Edit: It just occurred to me that if gamesiders were to apply then yes, they should be vetted by the CSI as well.

(This post was last modified: 12-24-2019, 11:03 AM by Amerion.)

Reply

Which kinda brings me to why I originally proposed LegComm merges into CSI. A good chunk of what LegComm does isn't just the manual process of checking nations and updating the roster and adjusting permissions and whatnot, it's also currently the institution that does the security checks.

What TNP does, for example, is that it separates various checks into separate departments. The Chair (they have a different name for that which I've forgotten) does the basic checks wrt citizenship nation, WA status, etc; the Vice-Delegate does the "political" check, and admins do the OOC-level checks. We currently have that mushed together into LegComm for pragmatic reasons, and for a similarly pragmatic reason I figured it'd make sense to just have CSI do that part.

Reply

I absolutely do not what an intelligence body making “political checks” and deciding who can and cannot be a member of the Assembly. I honestly don’t see how anyone could feel that to be appropriate.

_{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